Saturday, 30 April 2011

Colonial Inheritance

Nairobi Government Road 1960

It has become fashionable to claim, as has been claimed here on a different thread today, that the current state of post Colonial Africa is in part due to the fact that the Africans inherited an inadequate infrastructure from their white Colonial masters. In this age of political correctness most people tend not to challenge this claims , and allow blatant lies to become an accepted, if somewhat foetid new reality.  However, they remain blatant lies.

More scenes from Nairobi

When the British left Nairobi in the early 1960's it had an economy equal to that of South Korea and a modern fully functioning mid 20th Century infrastructure. You can click here to see images of the Nairobi which the Kenyan people inherited in 1963.  What you can see is a thriving modern city equal to anything you would find in Europe at the time.

So different to what we see today.
 
Salisbury Rhodesia circa 1969

An even more dramatic example is Zimbabwe now an economic basket case but once the bread basket of Southern Africa, does the image above of Salisbury 1969 look any less prosperous than any equivalent city in modern Texas? 
    Another image of Salisbury in the 1960's

You can see some film of Salisbury under white rule by clicking here and here that is the city which Mugabe and his gang inherited just over a decade later. 


As can be seen here he infrastructure extended beyond the main cities

Owen Falls Dam Jinja Kenya 1960

Owen Falls dam from the other side

Kilindini harbour 1959

Mombasa harbour 1955

Kampala Parliament Building 1960

 

Kampala National Theatre 1961
 The same building now
Kenya to Mombasa railway 1958
A train arrives at Changanwe Southern Kenya 1960's


Kisumu by Lake Victoria before independence in 1963 was not unlike any rural US town of the period

 An old Colonial Hospital

 Mulago Hospital constructed 1961 shortly before independence 

Makere University 1962
"Oppressed" pupils at the Kenyan Railways Training School in the 1950's (Kenyan National Archive) 

Whatever, the cause of the state of modern Africa, it is not the fault of the infrastructure it inherited.

239 comments:

1 – 200 of 239   Newer›   Newest»
Tia Mysoa said...

It is truly sad to see these previous ‘white managed’ cities in Africa deteriorating into stinking rubbish dumps. The problem nowadays - is that it is rather risky to walk around in some of these places flashing a camera.

Incidentally, here is some food for thought…

I noticed, while on a recent trip to Botswana, how the majority of the rural local people seemed quite content living in primitive mud huts. One of the chaps, who was helping us with renovations on a houseboat, asked me to give him a lift to his home situated near the village of Shakawe. He appeared to be quite an intelligent fellow, and spoke English fluently.

I dropped him off roughly in the centre of his primitive little village, whereI noticed that the walls of his mud hut were reinforced with an assortment of tin cans. His ‘home’ had no access to running water or electricity.

When I asked him how he managed to live under those conditions, his reply was: “We people are used to it; you whites are not!” He spoke in a friendly tone, but he was not joking.

While our conversation progressed, it rapidly reached a point where it became crystal clear to me why black and white simply cannot mix, and why these people are content with their lifestyles and why we are content with ours! I was briefly knocked for a six when the man asked me, “Why do white men like you travel so far to get to our primitive places?” By then he already knew, from overhearing our conversations while working on the houseboat - I presume, that we were happy to be far away from the crazy cities, the noise, the bumper-to-bumper traffic, pollution, nagging woman :) etc, etc…

It was obvious that the man did not know what I was talking about when I tried to explain to him why we white men like variety and adventure every odd now and then, as he clearly did not understand the concept of ‘enjoying a vacation’. I consequently did not bother conveying the message to him, that even if circumstances forced us to live in mud huts you can be sure that sooner or later that mud hut would be equipped with plumbing, solar heating, a wireless network, and all things that make life a little easier and more pleasant. I think I would have probably offended the man if I took that route!

The incident made me realize once again that there ARE major differences between the various races and cultures, and that all this enforcement of unity is an unnatural evil business. This world would have been a far better place if each group were allowed to live their lives separately, as peaceful neighbours.

Western politicians thought they were doing the Black African a favour when they allowed them to ‘inherit’ the Whiteman’s cities. They thought it would lead to the rapid advancement of the Black African. They thought wrong, for that is not what the Black African wanted!

misterfox said...

We need to see more of what the actual places in the 1960 photographs look like now to make a proper comparison.
A lot of once beautiful cities are collapsing. But what is the common denominator?

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1882089,00.html

http://current.com/1mbnm4c

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

This is a response to James Mathurin's comment on a previous thread: http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/update-on-censorship-at-leeds.html

Can I suggest that you look at this site showing photographs from various Rural East African towns such as Kisumu, Mombasa, Nakuru, Eldoret. And Jinja in the from the beginning of the 20th Century up to the 1960's http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/heritage/sikhhert%20EAfrica/nostalgic-other%20cities%20&%20towns.html

I think these show plentiful examples of “rural infrastructure”. For instance, do you see what was being built outside Eldoret in the 1950s, a road, in fact it looks like a dual carriageway (at least) to me.

And see those things along the side of the road in Kampala in 1954, and also along the middle of the road in Kisumu in 1960, yes, they are street lamps, electricity no less

In another picture you can see the Owen falls dam (Now called the Nalubaale Power Station) in Jinja, completed 1954 - nine years before independence (I have posted a clearer picture above)all that looks like infrastructure to me

If you look at the modern photographs, you can see how much of what the British built is still there 50 or 60 years on.

May I suggest you look at the history of the Kenya Uganda Railway
http://www.riftvalleyrailways.com/history.html

Rhodesian Railways
http://www.geoffs-trains.com/Museum/history.html

The airports including Nairobu opened 1958
http://www.mccrow.org.uk/eastafrica/NairobiAirport/Nairobi%20Airports.htm

the British left East Africa with what was effectively a common market arrangement, Inter-territorial co-operation between Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania was first formalised in1948 by the East African High Commission.  This provided a customs union, a common external tariff, currency and postage; and also dealt with common services in transport and communications, research and education.  Following independence, these integrated activities were reconstituted and the High Commission  was replaced by the East African Common Services Organisation, which many observers thought would lead to a political federation between the three territories.

That was foundation of the East African Economic Community

The African public were educated
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2008.00560.x/full
There was health care The main hospitals in Kenya and how many were opened before 1963 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Kenya

Macaw said...

Yes, we evil white racists bought civilization to primitive Afica when they were not ready for it...our bad....

Anonymous said...

James doesn't have an argument what he has is hatred of whites whether he chooses to admit to us and himself is another matter. He seems to honestly believe that Africans lived in a state grace before the evil white man destroyed their 'advanced' or peaceful civilisation ( I think Jimmy is as conflicted as another Half-caste, Barry Obama, on this).

His constant reference to the discredited, outdated and agenda ridden Gun's, Germ's and Steel is sad, however Jimmy doesn't like evidence preferring propaganda that re-affirms his world view. Jimmy is a man who thinks communism's a good idea - it's not evil if the enemy of the west does it , maybe?- it's just never been carried through properly you can't argue with stupidity/hatred like that.

He like's GGS because it put's us at the mercy of the 'people of colour's' charity it firms his position with in our society, puts us on the back foot etc...except it doesn't. As I said it's discredited , it's author has agenda which is not to increase our understanding but to constrict it, to make it conform to a world-view that has proved to be destructive and genocidal. He's a red with an agenda.

Jimmy like's evolution when he can use it 'de-construct' idea's he doesn't like but when it would undermine the tenets of his particular secular religion..all of sudden we've stopped evolving or selection starts 'working' in a different way ( is mother nature a libtard too?)

Furthermore there were and are African beasts that have been domesticated that Africans never took advantage of including the elephant, which a European famously did, as well as crop's, vegetable's that kept Africans alive and healthy for millennia, they were never cultivated.

We are different clearly and as Jimmy no doubt think's we should 'celebrate diversity' It's strange that he seems kick so hard against this one obvious fact.

Rob

Anonymous said...

And Jimmy... have a look at this, you may need to a lie down afterwards..but probably not. I'm sure there'll be some explanation eh mate

http://quigleyscabinet.blogspot.com/2009/06/domesticated-zebra.html

Rob

Anonymous said...

We bought horses with us jimmy.

Shaunantijihad said...

I suggest that Communists studied this and determined that the best way to permanently destroy the West was to promote "equality" and the big "multi-racial" society. As Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted, committed Communist agents would infiltrate all political parties in the West and begin the process of mass Muslim and Negro immigration. Promoting sexual mixing deepens the permanent genetic damage. This is a gene war with Islam to finalise the genocide of the white race.

Did not a Lib Dem say he looked forward to when we will all be coffee coloured? Imagine if we said how wonderful it would be to transform Nigeria into a white country, as it is so hideously black? To defend whites against such racism is now viewed as racist itself, such is the control of language, and thus thought and action, as predicted by George Orwell and practised by the Cult of Multiculturalism, with the full assistance from the treasonous MSM.

Franz said...

Many thanks for these photos. Especially the sight of Kampala's theatre blew me away.

These images have further convinced me that colonialism was possible the worst venture (morally and from a business standpoint) that the West ever undertook.

Just in order to extract some raw materials we spent aa king's, no: emperor's ransom to occupy these places with troops, establish an administration, build a first class infrastructure - only to abandon it all to the deeply unappreciative natives. The heritage of colonialism are myriads of immigrants, their mulatto offspring and a moral chip on our shoulder which has driven many whites into the utter lunacy of political correctness.

The Chinese seem to have learned from our mistakes. They are very active in Africa now, albeit with a different methodology. They grease the palm of whatever corrupt chieftain they encounter, move only so much personell and equipment to Africa as they need to exploit the place and apparently are ready to leave at a moment's notice as soon as they spot the heat from native unrest.

Kudos to them. If they keep it up, their African adventure will result in handsome profits, whereas classical colonialism is an unmitigated disaster the blowback of which will very possibly ruin at least two white nations - looking at you, France and England.

Pity. That zinc and copper could have been had a lot cheaper.

alanorei said...

Arthur Kemp's The Lie of Apartheid also contains graphic images on present-day 'enriched' Jo'burg.

A mate of mine who served in the Rhodesian Army throughout the 6 year-long Bush War of the 1970s said that many blacks were distressed that they were not allowed (by the UN and the British Gov't etc.) to vote for Ian Smith in the post-war elections. They wanted Smith to keep down the rival tribal factions. They knew that whichever black candidate got in would turn out to be a brutal dictator favouring his own tribe, which the Mashona Mugabe eventually did, against the Matabeles via his Korean-trained 5th and 6th Brigades. The likes of David Owen, Maggie Thatcher, Jon Vorster etc. didn't care, of course.

Detroit (aka 'Motown') is an example of the final goal of 'enrichment' in the West. The article doesn't refer to 'enrichment' as such but a US independent Baptist pastor who is familiar with these issues has said that when the 'enrichers' move in, the Europeans move out. He said that they eventually get tired of being mugged, raped and murdered.

Wikipedia indicates that much of the city is now being re-developed. This redevelopment seems to be doing away with many of the scars of 'enrichment.'

Shaunantijihad said...

Alan, here you go, the transformation of the first city of the first country into what I would term a typical Erectus feat of civilisational triumph (or the triumph over civilisation, as you will):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit

alanorei said...

Thanks, Shaun

Very graphic. Since it is a photo-article, the paper cleverly does not have to give reasons for the decline.

Franz said...

@ Shaunantijihad

I have seen these photos before but was just as shocked now as when I first laid eyes upon them.

I found it especially astonishing that there is a fully stocked library rotting away in a city whose inhabitants constantly complain that public "edukashun be bad". Apparently they are not even capable of using printed paper as fuel, much less making sense of the strange signs on its surface.

Although there is such a thing as a "talented tenth" among blacks, I see the dark, dull seething masses as nothing more than a biological weapon of mass destruction.

It works like a charm. Detroit looks much like Hiroshima in its darkest days of ruin.

Celtic Warrior said...

If Africa, the Middle East and the Indian sub continent are such great places, why do so many of their people wish to immigrate to the “racist” white countries, that once (supposedly) exploited them?

The degradation that occurred in African countries after independence is already beginning to make its mark in South Africa, which is losing many of its young white professionals to the Anglosphere. Soon there will only be elderly whites left in white South Africa (their children and grandchildren will have immigrated) and some younger but less qualified whites, who will not be eligible to enter some of the countries of the Anglosphere.

I am finding more and more Afrikaners looking for their link to an Irish grandparent, which entitles them to Irish citizenship. There would also seem to be an increase in Afrikaners marrying English speaking girls, whose British forebears provide her with access to a descendant’s visa.

Now I hope that you Souties will not object to the sons of the Boere descending upon you in ever increasing numbers, although I expect most of them make out the new world whose lifestyles are similar to the that in white South Africa. I know that the new world countries are more than pleased with the work ethic, education and quality of the South African whites that have already immigrated.

I think I should sound a warning as most Africans are now sending their children to English schools as they know that speaking English will give them access to the Anglosphere, including UK.

All of the problems (only some are listed below) being experienced in South Africa today are mainly due to affirmative action and white flight.

Degradation of roads
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/content.php/250-Durban-and-Johannesburg-road-degradation-at-tipping-point

Degradation of water quality
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Concerns-about-SAs-water-quality-20101018

Degradation of sewage
http://allafrica.com/stories/201002190035.html

The Watcher on the Wall said...

South Africa's urban infrastructure is well on its way. Purely coincidentally I spent some time jsu this weekend taking a virtual tour through the CBD's of Kimberley, East London and Port Elizabeth [three SA cities I knew well pre-1995] courtesy of G-Earth street view.

If litter, and once prosperous and dignified buildings now occupied by schlock furniture and tat clothing, cell phone retailers, easy money loan shark bucket shops plus an almost total absence of a white face [I only spotted 2] are your thing this is a salutary exercise.

This together with your photo gallery puts me in mind of Roman Gaul about 50 years after the Rhine froze in 406[?]AD.

All have one striking feature in common - a total absence of new construction activity.

Curt said...

@alanorei; "Detroit (aka 'Motown') is an example of the final goal of 'enrichment' in the West."
- Granted that blacks, regardless of their location on the earth are incapable of maintaining a modern and civilized city, still it seems to me that to compare Detroit with any post-Colonial African city is not a fair or valid comparison. What killed Detroit is the depression-level economy. Whites left Detroit primarily because they could not pay the onerous property taxes (that support the social services that blacks seek out) without the good-paying jobs that our government allowed to be exported to China. True, the constantly burgeoning black population with its resultant explosion of crime helped Whites to decide to move, but that was not the prime motive in this case. Also, Detroit (originally a French settlement and subsequently ruled by the British before it became part of the new USA) started as a White city (and if memory serves me correctly, was originally swamp land) and was built up to its former economic magnificence by Whites, the only part blacks had in the matter was providing labor for jobs that Whites did not want. In the case of Detroit, blacks were BROUGHT INTO the city ("caps" for emphasis-not for "shouting") whereas with colonialism Whites were brought into the colony. BOTH were mistakes. The people of Orangia have taken to heart a lesson that Whites ought to have been able to intuit for themselves several hundred years ago. It is my firm belief that blacks were intended by God to be happy with the primitive lifestyles that seem to be the only sort of lifestyle they are capable of living. All the former African Colonies either have reverted to their pre-colonial states or are in the process of doing so. All are dictatorships and democracy will always elude the black people due to their very natures. Before the prevailing PC mindset came to vogue, we used to have a (among Whites) folk proverb here; "you can take the black out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the black" - though of course there was an epithet used in place of the noun "black".

alanorei said...

Thank you for the additional comment, Curt. In sum, though, it doesn't appear to invalidate the comparison.

You basically say that the whites couldn't afford the taxes to support the blacks and the blacks couldn't build up the waste places by their own energy and expertise.

That appears to be the rule in any case of 'white flight,' whatever the prime cause(s). Not one exception in 6,000 years of recorded history, not that anyone has come up on this thread at any rate.

Laager said...

James Mathurin’s recital of clapped out old cliches gives realists a chance to respond with true facts

No doubt he lives in the UK, has never been to Africa and his "facts" are the pc-liberal-dross that has been misleading this nation for so long

Some points to challenge:

“inadequate infrastructures"

Kariba Dam?
At the time the biggest man made lake on earth
It provided the Rhodesias with water for agriculture, electricity, recreation, employment during construction and later in enterprises built on it's shores

"You can take the Dutch ... to get things up and running again"

- pure speculation, and you've not supplied convincing evidence to back up your opinion

Cape Town?
When the British took the Cape in 1806 they called it "Little Paris" - originally created by the Dutch

“The British ... lived well, but ... the natives lived in poverty and brutal repression during the colonial period”

The classic old chestnut
Local people were left to live as they always had
Relative to European standards this may be poverty, but everyone had a hut, land to graze their cattle on and no one was hungry
There was no poverty
This is a European concept introduced by the settlers

Repression?
Look at two Mandela and Tutu
Before whites arrived in SA blacks had not created their own form of writing. From 1820 missionaries turned the 9 South African black languages into a written form and taught blacks to read and write
Mandela & Tutu attended educational institutions created, managed and funded by whites
They graduated and pursued careers - Mandela/lawyer; Tutu school teacher/cleric - that did not exist in their societies
They also learned to speak, read and write English and Afrikaans and switched from animal hides to western apparel
Everything these two men are today is thanks to the white man
Mandela became President of the most developed nation on the African continent-all built through white ingenuity, technology, capital, design and management expertise and black labour

"n rural areas, with no education or health care set up."

In South Africa's case - absolute tripe!

I know white South Africans who have dedicated their entire lives to teaching black people.
The question that should be asked is:
Why is it the white man's responsibility to educate the black man?
Other civilisations created educational institutions - why not the blacks?
I spent 10 years in Govt and private practice procuring schools and hospitals for black people

"inadequate infrastructures built by colonial nations ... were deliberately created ... setting them up to fail."

What rubbish

Britain created SA in 1910 with 9 black tribes, 2 white groups, Indians and a Coloured/mixed-race/mulatto (e.g. Pres Obama) group. Just like multi-culti UK today. The groups co-existed peacefully. Killings have escalated since “freedom” in 1994

When SA became a republic in 1961 it entered the most prosperous phase in its history. Why?
Because it was entrusted to management by white people
That is why Wikipedia is able to write what it has.

Read:
http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/
See Pandora's Box articles

Part of SA did collapse - the Johannesburg CBD; the commercial powerhouse of the Africa
Why?
Because it became a fully integrated multi-culti eutopia
Criminals moved in and decent people moved out
Unlike the Brits up north who returned to the UK, white South Africans, who have lived in Africa longer than than white Australians have in Australia, simply move 5 miles north to the suburb of Sandton
They re-established themselves and left the emancipated black citizens of SA to enjoy downtown Johannesburg which they now claimed as their own

See:
http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/

and Google:
Death of Johannesburg Ross Benson

Read some REAL news about Africa to inform your ignorant prejudices James

James Mathurin said...

Laager, I am indeed British, and also a "mulatto", as you describe us.

I have not argued that the colonialists left a lot of physical infrastructure in place, including the Kariba Dam. My points have been aimed at the organisational aspects of infrastructure.

There are aspects of the Kariba Dam that do seem to speak to the darker side of colonialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kariba_Dam#Environmental_impacts
"The creation of the reservoir forced resettlement of about 57,000 Tonga people living along the Zambezi in both Zambia and Zimbabwe. The Tonga were one of the more primitive tribes in the region, and had had little contact with Europeans.

It is important to remember that Southern Rhodesia was a "conquered territory", a self-governing Dominion, and the Government could effectively command that the people be removed - similar to "compulsory purchase" in Britain, whereas Northern Rhodesia was a Colony, and governed by consent after consultation with the tribal chiefs.

The Tonga people were forced to leave their homes and fertile lands that had been under cultivation for hundreds of years
"

The links you provided are pretty vague. The 'Pandora' articles you mention seem to stretch to 30 or more, so you may need to summarise and clarify your points a bit. Death of Johannesburg seems to mainly consist of photographs.

Thanks you for, though, for providing some links. I'd appreciate it if you could also do some to back up the following claims:

Local people were left to live as they always had

There was no poverty

Before whites arrived in SA blacks had not created their own form of writing.

Britain created SA in 1910 with 9 black tribes, 2 white groups, Indians and a Coloured/mixed-race/mulatto (e.g. Pres Obama) group. Just like multi-culti UK today. The groups co-existed peacefully.

Killings have escalated since “freedom” in 1994

[The CBD collapsed] Because it became a fully integrated multi-culti eutopia

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting these pictures.

As a survivor from this era, I can tell you they are entirely accurate, and very, very evocative.

We left them beautiful infrastructure; working systems of education, housing, roads, healthcare and communications, to say nothing of the legal systems, police forces,free press, national parks, productive agriculture....

One could go on and on.

Enough said.

All I can add is that it was an extraordinary privilege to have lived in Colonial Africa.

Je ne regrette rien.

Anon.

Maryam said...

What will happen when we are all gone and there is nobody left to tell the truth?

It will be left to the liars, like James and that American sow who wrote the book about the Mau Mau to tell a revised history which fits their prejudices.

Laager said...

@ James M

"Thanks you for, though, for providing some links. I'd appreciate it if you could also do some to back up the following claims:

"Local people were left to live as they always had"

See Wikipedia
Sir Theophilus Shepstone (Somstu)

"There was no poverty"
Exactly what I said
Until the arrival of the white man blacks in Southern Africa were subsistence farmers - raising cattle and cultivating what they needed to eat to survive. No surplus to sell or export.
Wealth was measured by the number of cattle owned

There was no developed technological society as in Europe, which the liberal media here has lead people to believe was "stolen" from them.
Every technical advance blacks enjoy today was introduced by white European settlers British, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Germans, Italians and Belgians

"Before whites arrived in SA blacks had not created their own form of writing."
Check Wikipedia and see when the first books for SA blacks were published.
In most cases it was the Bible.
This work was pioneered by missionaries from the London Missionary Society.
There are 9 black tribes in South Africa
Xhosa, Zulu, Tswana, South Sotho, North Sotho, Venda, Pedi, Ndebele, Swazi, Shangaan.

"Britain created SA in 1910 with 9 black tribes, 2 white groups, Indians and a Coloured/mixed-race/mulatto (e.g. Pres Obama) group. Just like multi-culti UK today. The groups co-existed peacefully."
Prior to 1910 there were black-white conflicts as first the Dutch/Boere and then the British moved into the interior from the Cape in the south.
After the act of Union all the wars ended.
Civil unrest then manifested itself in the 60s, 70s and 80s as blacks protested against the apartheid laws.

"Killings have escalated since “freedom” in 1994"
See:
http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/
and
http://www.farmitracker.com/

"[The CBD collapsed] Because it became a fully integrated multi-culti eutopia"
See: blog
Death of Johannesburg

I have also submitted an article to Sarah written by Daily Mail journalist Ross Benson (RIP) on the topic which she may /may not publish
You can also google it.

Laager said...

@ James M

Ref: Your C&P on Kariba, Zambia & Zimbabwe

Before they were "given" their independence both these territories were conquered by CecIl Rhodes and called Northern and Southern Rhodesia in pursuit of his Cape to Cairo British colonialist dream. That meant that working through various structures and agencies, Rhodes/Britain did exactly as they pleased. Don't let the pc articles pull the wool over your eyes. Expand your reading and do some deductive lateral reasoning.

During Ian Smiths tenure in (S) Rhodesia/Zimbabwe a council of chiefs also existed and this was being gradually expanded to include more seats in parliament.
Read his autobiography: Bitter Harvest - The Great Betrayal.

The reality of the "forced removals" was that the Tsonga - I presume on both banks of the river - relocated to the new shoreline of the lake. Their was plenty of land available for them to cultivate their crops and graze their cattle and they now had a massive stable water supply. Drought was eliminated from their way of life. Those colonialists really were an evil bunch - not so?

Also bear in mind that at this time in the 50s/60s Australia was practicing a whites only immigration policy. That's the way it was back then.

The Pandora's Box articles are anything but vague. They are a series of essays written after detailed research presenting the facts that the left wing liberal media in the west went to great lengths not to inform their public about. Read one a day. They will save you an enormous amount of time and you will emerge considerably wiser from the exercise.

The Death of Johannesburg is supposed to be exactly what it is - a photographic essay. Ever heard of the old adage: "A picture is worth a thousand words"?
If you want the written version then read Ross Benson's article as you look at the pictures.
A simple Google search will find it for you

Start doing your own research on the www James
Just avoid the left wing liberal pc dross and search for the real hard news.
That is what I did
I am not here to spoon feed you

alanorei said...

Back in 1997, the late Mr Smith, then in his late 70s, said that "we really have a bunch of gangsters there who are pocketing the money daily. We live in a country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I have more black Rhodesians than white Rhodesians coming to see me nowadays. They walk in my front gate because it is always open. Most of them say: “What can we do? Give us the benefit of your experience. Our children are hungry. We never had hungry children when it was called Rhodesia.”"

To judge by the Christian Group newsletter that I receive that describes condition inside the former Rhodesia, the situation has not improved.

James Mathurin said...

Laager, thanks for the post, there was a lot of interesting stuff in there. I was interested to see the difference between the actions of the Boer / Dutch colonialists and the British. I do think the material you advised me to research does call into question the assertion that, "Local people were left to live as they always had".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa#Arrival_of_the_Dutch
"The newcomers drove the Khoikhoi from their traditional lands, decimated them with introduced diseases, and destroyed them with superior weapons when they fought back, which they did in a number of major wars and with guerrilla resistance movements that continued into the 19th century. Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa#Union_of_South_Africa
"The system left Blacks and Coloureds completely marginalised. The authorities imposed harsh taxes and reduced wages, while the British caretaker administrator encouraged the immigration of thousands of Chinese to undercut any resistance. Resentment exploded in the Bambatha Rebellion of 1906, in which 4,000 Zulus lost their lives after protesting against onerous tax legislation.

The Natives' Land Act of 1913[6] was the first major piece of segregation legislation passed by the Union Parliament, and remained a cornerstone of Apartheid until the 1990s when it was replaced by the current policy of land restitution. Under the act, blacks were relatively restricted from the legal ownership of land, at that stage to 7% of the country... The Act created a system of land tenure that deprived the majority of South Africa's inhabitants of the right to own land outside of reserves which had major socio-economic repercussions
"

The claim that there was no poverty makes sense if, as you say, we are only talking about the pre-colonial period. Also, after a little research, I do see that, as you say, there was no written language in the pre-colonial period, and African legal systems, history and traditions were passed down orally.

On the killings claim, are the killings catalogued on the site in comparison to Apartheid-era murder rates?

Thanks, though, for all the information in your reply.

James Mathurin said...

"Before they were "given" their independence both these territories were conquered by CecIl Rhodes and called Northern and Southern Rhodesia in pursuit of his Cape to Cairo British colonialist dream. That meant that working through various structures and agencies, Rhodes/Britain did exactly as they pleased."

So, might makes right? Maybe this is simply a moral line we don't have in common, but I find that an immoral pronciple to build a regime on.

"During Ian Smiths tenure in (S) Rhodesia/Zimbabwe a council of chiefs also existed and this was being gradually expanded to include more seats in parliament.

Oh, so he deigned to give them a token voice? I guess that makes up for it.

On the Tsonga issue, if they had actually consulted them on the matter, rather than condescendingly decreed it, I would think more of it. Somehow, I don't imagine Sarah or her fellows would be grateful to the 'Muslim theocracy' they keep insisting will take over the West, if they moved them to a compfortable suburb in Iceland - they would want their homeland, or at least a choice in the matter.

"Also bear in mind that at this time in the 50s/60s Australia was practicing a whites only immigration policy. That's the way it was back then."

So everyone was bigotted, brutal and inhumane, that makes it OK? If you see it that way, fair enough, I just don't think such a low example of humanity should be dismissed as simply inevitable.

"The Pandora's Box articles ...Read one a day"

Sorry, I only have time in my schedule for one white supremacist blog a day. ;-)

"Just avoid the left wing liberal pc dross and search for the real hard news."

OK, I suppose I would be better off with the right wing conservative anachronistic dross, after all, so fair enough.

"I am not here to spoon feed you"

Fair enough, and I am not here to do your research for you, either. Thanks for what you did do, though.

Laager said...

@ james M

I would classify most of the Wikipedia comments you have quoted as left-wing-liberal

The first racial discriminatory legislation to appear on any statute book in a territory which later became part of the Union of South Africa will be found in that of the British Crown Colony of the Cape shortly after 1806, This was followed by the British Colony of Natal c1845. The Boer Republics only came into existence c1850+.

This process of legislation continued after the creation of the Union in 1910. In 1948 the predominantly Afrikaner National Party came to power and gave this plethora of existing legislation a name - Apartheid. The nearest matching English word is segregation, although the policy that followed was officially called Seperate Development in English.

It is this state of separation that all right wing parties in Europe are starting to campaign for now that they have experienced the reality of the differences that multi-culturism brings.

Apartheid was therefor actually a British/SA English creation for which the Boer/Afrikaners have incorrectly been held responsible all these years.

You can follow the whole 185 year legislation trail on:
http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/

In Pandoras Box you will discover that 56% of income tax revenue - 90% of which was contributed by whites and their businesses - was spent on Black infrastructural development.

A lot of this money was spent in developing the Native Reserves = Bantustans = Homelands (= USA Indian Reservations) into self sustaining territories with a westminster democratic model of Govt. Democracy did not exist in black societies prior to the arrival of the white settlers in 1652 (Dutch) and 1795 & 1806 (British)

A spin off of this investment in the black territories - especially in health care - was that the black population grew from 3m in 1900 to 35m in 1990 whereas the white population grew from 1m to 5m in the same time frame. 75% of the black population growth took place during the "apartheid years" from 1948 to 1990.

Just a few more examples of the "repression" that blacks lived under.

I will send Sarah a summary of the statistics that I have assembled regarding conflicts and killings since the arrival of the European settlers. It is too long to post in the comments section.

As Sarah moderates all comments and contributions it will be her decision whether to publish or not

Laager said...

@ James M

Your post 03/05/2011 @ 13:58

Reading between the lines you seem like a young man who is just starting to come to grips with colonial history

What I posted in 3 May 2011 10:51 were historical facts and not personal opinions.
Make of them what you will.

On the contrary, it seems to be me who is doing all the research for you.

I am sending the killings information you asked about that I have compiled to Sarah for her to decide on.
From here on you will have to do your own work
Like you I too have a life to lead beyond this blog.

Anonymous said...

Restricting immigration is 'bigotted, brutal and inhumane' explain that James you make alot of emotive over the top statements. On a site that documents the systematic rape, torture and murder of white's because their white (real racism ) what you find terrible is an immigration policy that only allowed whites into what white society. Why was saying to non Europeans you can't come here bigoted, brutal and inhumane?

I Challenge you to find crime's committed by whites against blacks of the scale, number and type documented on this site. No liberal fantasy you have to provide proof - not propaganda.

Rob

James Mathurin said...

"I would classify most of the Wikipedia comments you have quoted as left-wing-liberal"

Because they disagree with your interpretation of facts, or because you believe they contain factual errors?

"[Apartheid] is this state of separation that all right wing parties in Europe are starting to campaign for..."

Well, I think that if they were honest about that intention, only the most brainwashed, or those most desparate for a scapegoat would fall for it.

"Apartheid was therefor actually a British/SA English creation for which the Boer/Afrikaners have incorrectly been held responsible all these years."

I am perfectly happy to attribute it to the British, rather than the Dutch Empire. To be honest, it makes little difference. Abuse, dehumanization and subjugation of natives is a feature of colonialism, wherever it is taking place. Just look at Australia and the Americas.

The Pandora stuff - I've tried googling, but it's not coming up. A link or a direct quote would really help clear it up.

I am pretty confident that whatever you send Sarah, she will put up on the blog. ;-)

James Mathurin said...

Laager, I am old enough to be flattered that someone would describe me as "young". ;-) I can tell that South Africa is a particular area of interest for you, but I have been interested, on a personal level, in colonialism and its legacy for a long time.

"What I posted in 3 May 2011 10:51 were historical facts and not personal opinions.

I actually had no argument with the factual aspects of what you posted. However, you do consistently interpret and spin those facts in a particular way. Perhaps you feel that your interpretations are entirely objective, but I feel there are other, equally valid, interpretations of the facts, and that it is worth comparing them.

I know we may not change each other's minds, but the discussion is always, IMO, worth having.

Anonymous said...

'while the British caretaker administrator encouraged the immigration of thousands of Chinese to undercut any resistance. Resentment exploded in the Bambatha Rebellion of 1906, in which 4,000 Zulus lost their lives after protesting against onerous tax legislation.'

James this seems like a tried and tested formula. I agree this shouldn't happen and if it's true I think it show's that what the 'British' did they have only continued to do. It doesn't justifying dispossessing financially poor whites though, it was us who fought and worked for this nation and its our's. Identity matters we are not 'new men' and never will be.

Rob

James Mathurin said...

Rob, I was trying to comment on Laager using the immorality of Australia's whites-only immigration policy as an excuse for the immorality of Apartheid in South Africa. The description was aimed far more at Apartheid, although I certainly don't see how the "bigotted" adjective fails to apply. I could also apply, "idiotic, short-sighted, counter-productive and arrogant."

It's also especially hypocritical, considering it was a country where Europeans had brutally treated a native dark-skinned Asian population.

"I Challenge you to find crime's committed by whites against blacks of the scale, number and type documented on this site."

For a moment, the phrasing made me think you wanted me to search Sarah's blog evidence of such crimes. A pretty fruitless endeavour, indeed!

I cannot find crimes of the same type, as there has not been a situation where Africans (which I took to be the meaning of 'Blacks' in your post)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_toll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#Statistics

Also, bear in mind that every African country that was part of a European empire was not negotiated for - it was conquered in a war by an aggressive, invading military force. After this, you also get cases like the "rubber system":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo#Congo_Free_State.2C_1884.E2.80.931908

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

No examples in the the last 70 years huh James?

Your link to the slave trade ignores the fact of the Arab slave trade or that there were 600,000 slaves in Ethiopia (by some estimates 2 million) in 1935, 100 years after Britain had banned slavery across a quarter of the earth's surface and that there are currently, as I type three times as many people (27 million) living in forms of slavery as in the entire the entire 300 years of the north Atlantic slave trade.
That Niger didn't ban slavery until 2003 and Saudi Arabia only got round to it in 1964 (See the links in mu article about White Guilt)

Did you also know that more black Americans were killed by black Americans in 2005 than were lynched by racist whites in the one hundred years between 1865 and 1965?.

Of course inconvenient facts can be ignored when you have an agenda to promote.

James Mathurin said...

"It doesn't justifying dispossessing financially poor whites though"

Rob, while I would just substitute 'Britons' for 'Whites', I do agree with that. I personally feel that we need a higher minimum wage, and it needs to be more strongly enforced.

If employers were facing real problems if they were caught employing illegal immigrants on sub-minimum wages, it would make that a much less attractive proposition.

"it was us who fought and worked for this nation and its our's."

Well, I would argue that the rich think it's theirs, more than ours. I would also point out that Blacks from African and Carribbean colonies fought for Britain in both World Wars, and have been a part of the work force supporting this country for a long time, so I think that they, along with Indians and Pakistanis, have a greater claim to be allowed into this country than, say, White Spaniards, Germans or Swiss.

I'm just saying. ;-)

James Mathurin said...

"No examples in the the last 70 years huh James?"

Shifting the goalposts, huh Sarah?

"Your link to the slave trade ignores the fact of the Arab slave trade or that...[etc]"

That is because the link I put was specifically about the Atlantic Slave Trade, an enterprise created by and for Europe. The reason was, because that is what Rob asked for, not a history of the Arab Slave trade, or indeed anything else.

"Did you also know that more black Americans were killed by black Americans in 2005 than were lynched by racist whites in the one hundred years between 1865 and 1965?."

You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it. Your statistics have been pretty dodgy in the past. Could I have some more information to back up the claim, please?

"Of course inconvenient facts can be ignored when you have an agenda to promote. "

My point exactly.

Laager said...

For anyone interested in the full details on the slave trade may I suggest they read:
The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas ISBN 0330 35437x

Bottom line:
The slave trade could never have worked as it did were it not for African blacks capturing fellow African blacks and then selling them to European whites who provided the transport from Africa to the Americas.

""I Challenge you to find crime's committed by whites against blacks of the scale, number and type documented on this site."

For a moment, the phrasing made me think you wanted me to search Sarah's blog evidence of such crimes. A pretty fruitless endeavour, indeed!

I cannot find crimes of the same type, as there has not been a situation where Africans (which I took to be the meaning of 'Blacks' in your post)"

Ducking and diving James now that you have to substantiate your opinions with hard facts?

You really should start doing some reading James:
1994 Rwanda Genocide 800,000 - black on black dead
1994 to the present South Africa - 320,000 dead - 80% black on black
About 40,000 whites included in this figure, randomly slain by blacks.

According to Bishop Tutu blacks practice a remarkable custom of brotherly love known as Ubuntu. It is so kind, considerate and caring that South Africa has the worlds second highest murder rate. Probably the highest black on black rate.

What Bishop Tutu also does not tell the world is that witchcraft, sorcery and "muti murders" - killing humans to harvest body body parts for "muti" (medicine) - by blacks is a common practice in (South) Africa today.

You may recall the headless body of a black child found in the Thames a few years ago. The Met Police called in the SA Police to advise on this muti murder - i.e. black immigrants to the UK are now practicing this part of their "culture" here.

And don't forget the unique black African solution to cure aids - raping a virgin. I have a nephew who worked in a children's hospital in South Africa who treated 4 cases a week, of girls under 12, arising out of this crime.

Uncomfortable details I'm sure, but facts are facts, presented to you on this blog which is not white supremacist, but one of white pride and merely factualist

White pride you may ask?
Well explain to me why 40,000+ black Africans try to get into Europe illegally each year and there is not a corresponding flow of white immigrants from Europe into Africa

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ James

You only need to look up any report on black on black crime in America. However, here is a link to MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20203888/
which states that some 8,000 black people wiere murdered in America in 2005, of which 93% were killed by fellow blacks which would be 7,440.

As your link states The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 lynchings of blacks and 1,297 lynchings of whites between 1882 and 1968. The chart you have provided suggests there were another 2100 "racially motivated killings" between the end of the civil war in 1865 and 1880. Even assuming all those were white on black lynchings (which is unlikely), that makes a total over the 103 year period of 5,540.

That is still almost 2,000 less than were killed by other blacks in one year in 2005.

2005 was in fact a lower than average year the same article says 10,400 blacks were murdered in 1995, given the same percentage that means 9.600 were killed by fellow blacks in a single year.

alanorei said...

These are pieces of data. I'm not attempting to claim 100% accuracy for them. But just for the record:

The Idi Amin regime is reported to have claimed 100,000-500,000 lives.

The Ugandan Bush War in the aftermath of Amin's deposition is reported to have claimed 1,500,000 lives.

The Sudanese Civil War, Arabs vs. Nuba blacks, is said to have killed 2,000,000 individuals.

The above figures pale (!) somewhat against the backdrop of WW1, 2 but they suggest nevertheless that 'Whitey' has no monopoly on violence in what is sometimes called the dark continent.

Of course, maybe a higher standard of conduct should be expected from 'Whitey' but that is a separate issue.

James Mathurin said...

Laager, I don't for a moment pretend that Africans were not involved in the Slave Trade.

But were the Africans responsible for the Triangular trade which took slavery to unprecedented levels? Were they responsible for the millions of deaths on the Middle Passage voyage? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage) Were they responsible for the rape, murder, mutilation and forced separation of families of slaves in the New World?

The Africans weren't going up to European traders, begging them to take their slaves off their hands. They were paid - subcontractors, if you will. They have to bear the responsibility for that choice, but you cannot put the responsibility for the instigation or maintenance of the Atlantic Slave Trade on them.

"Ducking and diving James now that you have to substantiate your opinions with hard facts?"

No, I was asked a question that was impossible to answer. I may as well have been asked, "Who was the greatest unicorn hunter in Pompeii?" I offered an answer that was as close as reality allowed.

With the numbers you stated, i have to say it's pretty shocking. It's almost as if someone created several countries that were composed of antagonistic cultural groups, and deliberately kept both at a low socioeconomic level, thus ensuring that tensions would most likely increase, especially without a repressive police state to keep a lid on it, until there was a high rate of violent crime, with the potential to break into full-on ethnic war.

But who would be stupid enough to do that? Who would be so govverned by short-term selfish self-interest that they would create such a situation?

Am I getting a little too snarky?

The muti and virgin stuff I have heard about and is disgusting. I don't know exactly how much of a "common practice" it is though.

"this blog which is not white supremacist"

No, people on here justhappen to believe that humans can be broken into a hierarchy, and whites just coincidentally reside near the top of that hierarchy (in a position of 'superiority' you might just say). I think everyone should have pride in who they are, but not at the expense of believing that other people are less deserving of pride, simply because they are from a different group.

"Well explain to me why 40,000+ black Africans try to get into Europe illegally each year and there is not a corresponding flow of white immigrants from Europe into Africa "

Because Europe represents the First World, and better opportunities for a better life. People from the developing or Third WOrld will inevitably move itowards that. It's the reason you don't get many French, British or Americans moving between each other's country, but not emmigrating to Bosnia or Poland.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

The European slave trade was carried out very efficiently over three centuries and involved between eight and nine million slaves. The Arab Slave trade carried on over almost three milena and involved in excess of fifty million slaves. I believe most male slaves in Arab countries were castrated and worked to death.

As to African upon African slavery it is behind must of the inter-tribal violence we have seen in places like Uganda, Rwanda and of course the Congo. Idi Amin was a member of the Burundi tribe who had historically been enslaved by the Watuzi, who are among the tallest people in the world (the very tall elegant tribesmen who appear in the Stewart Granger / Deborah Kerr version of King Solomon's Mines) and as a result were heavily persecuted when Amin took power. If you trace the Rwandan genocide back to it origins you will find racial hatred caused by inter tribal slavery. It is popular to blame the European Colonials, but they in fact merely perpetuated what was already a situation which had existed long before white settlement

Virtually every race on earth was involved in slavery and guilty of terrible atrocities. The white / European race did not start slavery, we were involved for a much shorter time than many, and we led the way in bringing it to an end, at least to the degree which it has ended.

The argument that everyone wants to move to the west for a better life may be true but that dies not mean we should let them all move here.

For a start that will inevitably destroy the "better life" in the west and meanwhile it is doing nothing to improve the situation in the third world.

alanorei said...

Again, for information, two of the leading figures in combating slavery in the Sudan and in the abolition of slavery in the then British Empire were respectively General Charles Gordon and William Wilberforce.

The Wikipedia articles seem quite balanced although the one on Gordon says little about his efforts against the slave trade. More details can be found in Faith Under Fire in the Sudan by Peter Hammond and the biography on Gordon by John Pollock, which the Wikipedia article recommends as a sound source. Having read both, I can say that they are quite detailed portrayals with many notes and references.

alanorei said...

P.S. The famous potter, Josiah Wedgwood, was an ally of Wilberforce's in the efforts to abolish slavery in the then British Empire.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, thanks for providing a link.

Now, we have had some disagreements over how to interpret statistics in the past, so I will try to lay this out clearly:

There were about 50 times as many African Americans in 2000 as there were at the end of the Civil War. That makes a straight comparison of numbers a pretty dodgy comparison.

Even assuming that the Tuskegee Institute has a record of a majority of lynchings (a huge assumption), the number of modern deaths you posted (7, 440) is 37 times smaller than the per capita death rate of lynchings for Blacks.

Just for reference, these are the pages I used to make the comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Black_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Demographics

For what it's worth, I do very readily believe that white on black killings have reduced since slavery, but I still believe the disheartening statistics you posted are definitely a part of the 'Colonial Inheritance' we are talking about. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of low income black on black crimes and low income white on white crimes, as I would not expect those numbers to be so different.

James Mathurin said...

Alan,

"...but they suggest nevertheless that 'Whitey' has no monopoly on violence in what is sometimes called the dark continent."

Did anyone claim that?

Again, these are all post-colonial, so I think that they, like Sarah's numbers, fall under the 'Colonial Inheritance' banner.

"Of course, maybe a higher standard of conduct should be expected from 'Whitey' ..."

Well, if your myth is that the great, beenvolent Europeans brought civilisation and humanity to the dark-skinned, violent savages, yes, you would expect a higher standard. What we do tend to see, instead, is inhumane brutality breeding inhumane brutality.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah,

"As to African upon African slavery it is behind must of the inter-tribal violence we have seen in places like Uganda, Rwanda and of course the Congo."

That is pretty much my point. Why would you try to form a nation out of two groups that have such enmity as the groups in those countries?

It was either dangerously inept, or disgustingly cynical. The groups involved in those were suddenly forced to share a country, where they would have lived separately before. This meant they ended up having to share a government after independence. Look at how many centuries it took the countries of Europe to be able to make peaceful co-governance rather than war the norm (Whether or not you think the EU is good, it is certainly more peaceful than pre-20th Century European relationships)?

"It is popular to blame the European Colonials, but they in fact merely perpetuated what was already a situation which had existed long before white settlement"

No, they elevated it to a previously unheard of industrialised level, and one in which a huge number of deaths were not just accepted, but expected.

"Virtually every race on earth was involved in slavery and guilty of terrible atrocities. The white / European race did not start slavery, we were involved for a much shorter time than many, and we led the way in bringing it to an end, at least to the degree which it has ended. "

No disagreement on any of those, except for the length of time slavery existed in Europe - Europeans had slaves for as long as they have recorded history, although the slave trade is a comparitively short 2 or 3 century chapter of that story.

"The argument that everyone wants to move to the west for a better life may be true but that dies not mean we should let them all move here."

I would never argue that, either. I would say that limits should be based on skills, etc, rather than race.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

The Tuskegee Institute is part of Tuskegee University one of the most respected black Universities in America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_University

They are considered one of the most authoritative sources of information on black history in America and have conducted considerable research into the "persecution of blacks" in the pre-civil rights eras

They have documented a total of 3,446 black lynching victims between 1882 and 1964, the Yale New Haven Teachers institute in a document entitled "The Negro Holocaust" quote a similar figure: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html

To be fair to you I took the "racially motivated murder" figures for 1865 to 1880 which you provided, assumed for the sake of argument that all victims were black and had been lynched, and very generously added 2,100 to the Tuskegee figures making a total of 5,547, which is way higher than quoted by any other source

Exactly what method of calculation are you using which makes 7,440 become 37 times less than 5,547?

the 5,547 figure isn't the yearly average it is the total number of victims over 100 years

Are you trying to suggest that had there been more blacks in America in 1865 more would have been lynched? (268,000 more?)

If so that is just ludicrous.

If you had provided a source a source which quoted 273,000 black lynching victims then your claim would have made some sense. As it is it is ludicrous.

As to your second question, yes I do believe white on black crime had decreased. It is the very lowest category in the US justice departments figures, on, for instance, homicide http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm (this despite whites being 63% of the population and blacks being around 13%)

It is a very rare type of crime.

I will treat your claim that black crime rates are the result of "colonialism" with the contempt it deserves.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Your hatred of white people and you compulsion to blame them for all evils is really quite troubling James, I suggest you seek help.

The drawing of borders by Europeans had nothing to do with African upon African slavery, that was going on long before Europeans arrived.

Anyway it made little difference, often, as with South Africa, whites drew borders and Africans moved into them to improve their situation.

Furthermore we recently saw "xenophobic" violence between South Africans from the Xhosa tribe and immigrants from Zimbabwe and Mosambique, they were not required to live within a single border.
Also, do you really believe that Africa could function in the 2Ist century if instead of being 52 countries it was 1,000 different tribal enclaves?

PamelaG said...

I am not usually considered stupid, but can someone please explain to me what James Mathurin is talking about.

How is 5000 37 times more that 7000? I don't get his logic.

To try and apply a per-capita calculation to a total number of deaths in this way is totally misleading

You can't count one death as multiple deaths because the dead person is part of a minority.

alanorei said...

James

The tenor of all your comments is:

Races are the same but 'Whitey' is to blame.

However, if it is allowed that the departing Europeans were to blame for not bringing the indigenous populations up to the standard where they could maintain the developed infrastructures of the former colonies, then that immediately puts the skids under any notion of racial equality w.r.t. intrinsic abilities.

You can't have it both ways.

P.S. I know from past experience your tendency to spin out exchanges. I would ask if you wish to do so on this issue, then please pay Sarah the courtesy of not cluttering up her blog and contact me on alan.oreilly@ntlworld.com. I would try to respond to any serious points you wished to raise but the responses might be short and curt compared with what they are here.

James Mathurin said...

"They have documented a total of 3,446 black lynching victims between 1882 and 1964, the Yale New Haven Teachers institute in a document entitled "The Negro Holocaust" quote a similar figure: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html"

Fair enough, but the Negro Holocaust article lists exactly the reason why I think the true number would be significantly higher:
"There are three major sources of lynching statistics. None cover the complete history of lynching in America. Prior to 1882, no reliable statistics of lynchings were recorded. In that year, the Chicago Tribune first began to take systematic account of lynchings. Shortly thereafter, in 1892, Tuskegee Institute began to make a systematic collection and tabulation of lynching statistics. Beginning in 1912, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People kept an independent record of lynchings.

These statistics were based primarily on newspaper reports. Because the South is so large and the rural districts had not always been in close contact with the city newspapers, it is certain that many lynchings escaped publicity in the press. Undoubtedly, therefore, there are errors and inaccuracies in the available lynching statistics.
"


"Exactly what method of calculation are you using which makes 7,440 become 37 times less than 5,547"

Using the pages I linked to:
The 2000 African American population was 37.6 million, which is approximately 50 times larger than the 760,000 African American population in 1790 at the time of the first US census.

For black on black violence to have claimed more lives than lynching, allowing for the much increased population, it would need to be 172,300 (3,446 X 50). The number you posted (7,440) is actually 23.2 times smaller (so I must have overstated in my post - apologies for that) than that projected target.

Now, we were working with some dodgy numbers, comparing murder numbers to murder rates, and with one set of data that was definitely incomplete, but the comparison I've made is more valid than the straight comparison of numbers you did. It still is pretty unsatisfying, but I just tried to move it in the right direction.

"As to your second question, yes I do believe white on black crime had decreased.

That wasn't a question. I was agreeing with you.

James Mathurin said...

"Your hatred of white people and you compulsion to blame them for all evils is really quite troubling James, I suggest you seek help.

Sarah, I love White people. Hell, I'm engaged to one, and half my family are White. I am as much White as I am Black. I simply don't believe White people are somehow 'special', any more than I believe Black, Asian or Inuit people to be 'special'.

I do dislike the powerful taking advantage of those with less power, and that is what colonialism is. It just so happened that it was Europeans, through the luck of their history.

"The drawing of borders by Europeans had nothing to do with African upon African slavery, that was going on long before Europeans arrived."

I never suggested the two had anything whatsoever to do with each other.

"Also, do you really believe that Africa could function in the 2Ist century if instead of being 52 countries it was 1,000 different tribal enclaves? "

There's a lot of assumptiopns there. Europe began the same, but by trading and interacting with each other as equals, they built nations slowly and gradually, as in our own country, and there was much violence on the way. Europe just went into Africa with force of arms, and treated the Africans as somewhere between cattle and criminals.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

The comment you are quoting is based on an assumption made by the extraordinarily prejudiced writer of "The Negro Holocaust" "we only have records of 3,446, but we're sure there were lots more 'cos America is so big and 'cos white people are so ####ing evil."

Of course, you are a school teacher and that is how history is now taught.

The figure of 7,440 was based on a single relatively low crime year, the figure of 5546 is based on one hundred years.

Assuming the 7440 is an average and it appears to be below average, over 100 years that makes 744,000 blacks killed by blacks, which adjusted to take into account the difference in population size (which again is being very fair to you, given that most of the lynchings we are talking about occurred a hundred years after 1790,) that would be 31,931, which is considerably more than the number of lynchings, even with all the ones you "just know happened" even though there is no record of them.

Also, you are not trying to move things in the right direction, you are attempting to distort the truth.

There are still over 5 times more whites than blacks in America, yet the US crime figures, show that blacks murder significantly more whites than whites kill blacks.

It is very difficult to actually get numbers, because the US government now hides them, but you can work it out by taking the murder rate stats I sent you earlier, comparing them to the victimology statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States and then doing a calculation based on head of population.

Work it out, you will find the difference is ...striking to say the least.

Anyway, this is all rubbish, what you are trying to say is like claiming that because 364 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan, if we had sent more, more would have been killed, when there is no basis upon which to prove that.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, are you going to post my post which you are replying to?

I ask because, in it, there is at last an explanation of why the "extraordinarily prejudiced" writer suggests the true number would be higher, and it makes sense to me, without resorting to stupid claims of 'White people being evil'.

James Mathurin said...

Alan,

"The tenor of all your comments is:

Races are the same but 'Whitey' is to blame.
"

For one thing, I have never used mocking or derogatory terms like 'whitey'. For another, while that may be your interpretation of what I have said, I think it says more about your preconceptions than it does about mine, as it certainly doesn't reflect my attitudes.

"However, if it is allowed that the departing Europeans were to blame for not bringing the indigenous populations up to the standard where they could maintain the developed infrastructures of the former colonies, then that immediately puts the skids under any notion of racial equality w.r.t. intrinsic abilities."

I can see what you're getting at, but I was describing a situation where the departing invaders had not simply failed to 'bring the Africans up', but had actively tried to put them down, and set up an infrastructure that, once separated from the supporting mechanisms of empire, was not fit for purpose in bringing anyone up to any particular level.

I also think that a more productive approach, if one's concern was creating self-reliant, independent nations, would have been to trade and negotiate with the natives as equals, regardless of the technological difference between the nations, rather than simply invade and occupy them.

"I would try to respond to any serious points you wished to raise but the responses might be short and curt compared with what they are here. "

Yay, an invitation to open myself up for abuse! Pass. If, however, you want to contact me directly, as I have said to others, you should be able to contact me by clicking on my name.

alanorei said...

Re: supposed abuse

Wrong, James

The basis for any such response on my part would simply be the Book of Genesis, KJB and supporting passages.

That is where the whole issue of racial origins is fully explained, though in terms that might be deemed unflattering by racial equalitarians.

James Mathurin said...

Alan, seeing as how you already know your replies before you've listened to anything I have to say, and seeing as I am not a Christian, that sounds like a bit of a waste of both of our time. Let's skip it, eh?

Laager said...

@ james M

"That is pretty much my point. Why would you try to form a nation out of two groups that have such enmity as the groups in those countries?

It was either dangerously inept, or disgustingly cynical. The groups involved in those were suddenly forced to share a country, where they would have lived separately before. This meant they ended up having to share a government after independence. Look at how many centuries it took the countries of Europe to be able to make peaceful co-governance rather than war the norm"

This is intriguing stuff.

In South Africa 9 black tribes were included in the British construct - the Union of South Africa in 1910.

In 1948 the predominantly Afrikaner Nationalist Party came to power.
They had no desire to live in an integrated society with black people nor did they want to rule them.

They embarked on their policy of apartheid which recognised the original territories of each tribe. The British called them Native Reserves. the Afrikaners called them Bantustans which was later changed to Homelands. Exactly the same as the Indian Reservations that still exist in the USA.

Post 1948 up to 54% of South Africa's tax revenue was spent on black infrastructural development and upliftment. By recognising these territories, policing them and keeping the tribes apart to prevent them killing one another contributed significantly to the black population explosion in SA

The purpose of all this effort was to develop these territories into independent nations like Lesotho and Swaziland. The world - through the United Nations - would not accept this policy and condemned it as "A crime against humanity". A diverse multi-culti integrated society was forced on the inhabitants of SA

You say that these sovereign territories should be respected.
This is exactly the state of affairs in the UK with Scotland, England, Wales and N Ireland/Ulster

Why then was SA singled out as a special case?

James Mathurin said...

"In South Africa 9 black tribes were included in the British construct - the Union of South Africa in 1910."

You'd maybe know this - were they included as equals, or as subjects / conquered natives?

"In 1948 the predominantly Afrikaner Nationalist Party came to power.
They had no desire to live in an integrated society with black people
"

Well, honestly, that was a pretty stupid position to take, considering where they were. I would be just as dismissive of the wisdom of a Black groupin Britain trying to create a separate society, with no White people.

"They embarked on their policy of apartheid which recognised the original territories of each tribe."

And were those territories treated as equals, or were they deliberately set up to be inferior to the territories claimed by the Afrikaner minority?

"Exactly the same as the Indian Reservations that still exist in the USA.

Comparing your preferred system to the way Native Americans have been treated is a losing strategy.

"Post 1948 up to 54% of South Africa's tax revenue was spent on black infrastructural development and upliftment."

So Apartheid was not only ethically unfair, but massively costly and inefficient? And this is the system Right Wing Europeans want to follow?

"By recognising these territories, policing them and keeping the tribes apart to prevent them killing one another contributed significantly to the black population explosion in SA"

An interesting interpretation of South african policing. The tribes had managed to maintain a feudalistic system for centuries, which had not resulted in them killing each other. While this is not a great system, if they were more likely to kill each other under Apartheid, I don't think it contributed that much.

"A diverse multi-culti integrated society was forced on the inhabitants of SA"

And people say the UN doesn't work! ;-) I really think you are giving the architects of Apartheid far too much benefit of the doubt, as regards their intentions.

"You say that these sovereign territories should be respected.
This is exactly the state of affairs in the UK with Scotland, England, Wales and N Ireland/Ulster

Why then was SA singled out as a special case?
"

Maybe because the UK was formed centuries ago. If South Africa was trying to act like an 18th Century regime in the 20th Century, it just shows how uncivilised Apartheid really is.

Laager said...

@ James M

"You'd maybe know this...conquered natives?"

Blacks were totally at liberty to pursue their tribal lifestyle in their own territories
They had no vote within the white man's territory - as created by Britain
Just as the citizens of Ulster cannot vote in Ireland

"Well that was a stupid position to take...people"

It is already happening in Britain
A white policeman can't be a member of the Black Policeman's Association
Previously there was only the Policeman's Association, open to all regardless of race

"deliberately set up to be inferior to minority?"

Clarify inferior
BTW the SA English were a smaller minority than Afrikaners and they had presided over this status quo from 1910 to 1948

"Comparing...to Native Americans...is a losing strategy"

Meaning?

"Apartheid...costly and inefficient?”

No
Blacks were rural subsistence farming peasant who generated virtually no taxes to uplift themselves
This tax expenditure came exclusively from white taxpayers, their businesses and customs and excise duties
This investment in the Homelands was the manifested benevolence of white South Africans to help uplift the black man from stone age tribalism to a western society.
This goodwill by SA whites towards blacks was described by the UN as "A Crime Against Humanity"

" interesting policing. The tribes ... killing each other"

Read "Shaka Zulu" and "The Washing of The Spears"
Pay particular attention to the information on "The Mfecane"
There is a summary on Wikipedia

" ... people say the UN doesn't work!"

Read:

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/

for proof that the UN has failed in SA

Example

Deaths in Police custody during ‘Crime Against Humanity’ Apartheid South Africa:

Throughout the apartheid-era between 1963 and 1994 75 people died in police-custody - 31 years = 2.4 deaths/year

‘Rainbow Democracy’ South Africa:
Jan – Nov 2010: 566 Deaths in 11 months = 617.4 Deaths per year

Police custody deaths increase 25,725% in ANC’s ‘TRC Rainbow Democracy’

So far no comment from the liberal western media but the blogs have informed the west about this carnage
Stop reading The Guardian and search out the real hard news

" ... how uncivilised Apartheid really is."

What do you mean by "uncivilised?"

Here is a list of achievements of the incumbent ANC Govt since 1994

Unemployment up
Average life span down
Aids increasing - Mbeki denied it existed
His Health Minister promoted taking garlic and beet-root as a cure
After unprotected sex Pres Zuma took a shower as a precaution
The masses are more practical - they rape virgins - preferably under 12 - as an aids cure
Education standards have plummeted
SA has the highest rape statistic in the world
SA has the highest murder statistic in the world

Affirmative Action in South Africa

South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in favour of the majority that has virtually complete political and economic control!

The fact that the political majority requires affirmative action to protect them against a 9% minority group, is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth-making structures, and as such their only solution is to take it from others!

Not since Nazi Germany's anti-semetic laws has the world seen such discriminatory legislation by a Govt against a minority of its citizens.

And finally:
"... how uncivilised Apartheid really is"

Thanks to apartheid Mandela crossed over from wearing animal hides to western apparel; learned to read, write and count; learned to speak English and Afrikaans; became a lawyer (no such occupation in African society) opened the first black law practice in SA (no white staff); learned democracy; won the Nobel Peace Prize and became the President of the most developed country on the continent

James Mathurin said...

I'm really busy at the moment, so this may be spread over two posts.

"Blacks were totally at liberty to pursue their tribal lifestyle in their own territories
They had no vote within the white man's territory - as created by Britain
Just as the citizens of Ulster cannot vote in Ireland
"

So the White man controlled their teritory, and they had no say in the White Man's? It was unfair in Ulster, it was unfair in South Africa. In fact, the comparison between Apartheid South Africa and Catholics in Ireland did occur to me.

"A white policeman can't be a member of the Black Policeman's Association
Previously there was only the Policeman's Association, open to all regardless of race
"

Well, there you're getting into a whole series of discussions. What it boils down to, for me, is whether the ethnic minorities in the police force felt that the Policeman's Association was satisfactorily representing them. If not, it makes perfect sense to create a body to do so, although hopefully that will not always be necessary.

"Clarify inferior"

Well, inferior funding and provision of resources. As you said, up to 54% of tax went to Blacks, which surely means that 46% went to Whites, who represented only 9% (1911) to 16% (1980) of the population. That means Whites were overfunded by between 300% to 500%, while Blacks were underfunded by 60% to 67%.

"BTW the SA English were a smaller minority than Afrikaners and they had presided over this status quo from 1910 to 1948"

So, it went from horrendously unrepresentative to just terribly unrepresentative?

""Comparing...to Native Americans...is a losing strategy"

Meaning?
"

Meaning Native Americans were the victims of attempted genocide, brutal attacks on men, women and children, and early germ warfare.

"This investment in the Homelands was the manifested benevolence of white South Africans to help uplift the black man from stone age tribalism to a western society. "

Wait, so were they being benevolent by making the Blacks live in the same manner they had for Centuries at the same time as they were being benevolent by trying to bring them into the 20th Century?

Come on, pick an argument and stick to it.

"Pay particular attention to the information on "The Mfecane"
There is a summary on Wikipedia
"

Had a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane#Causes
It's a horrible series of events, but I feel like you mean it to be a bigger point. If you're trying to suggest that it shows that large-scale violence is inevitable between the South African tribes, it looks more like an exceptional outbreak of violence, caused in part, at least by the presence of the colonialists.

The statistics on police deaths certainly make disturbing reading, but I really would like to see the sources and details for how they were recorded and calculated.

"What do you mean by "uncivilised?""

Well, the kind of system you mentioned earlier, where might makes right, and society is constructed to create, unmerited massive inequality between the living standards of different groups.

James Mathurin said...

Part 2:
"Here is a list of achievements of the incumbent ANC Govt since 1994

Unemployment up
Average life span down
"

Sources and statistics please? My main question would be whether it included the unemployment and life spans within the Bantustans under Apartheid, seeing as they offered a very easy beauraucratic dodge to not count poor statistics.

"Aids increasing - Mbeki denied it existed"

Oh my god, no disagreement there - that was appalling. I am really glad that Mandela has started to campaign more vocally about the truth of HIV and AIDS, but the governmental position was just awful.

"South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in favour of the majority that has virtually complete political and economic control!"

So what percentage of th eonomy is controlled by Blacks? And considering that Apartheid represented massive Affirmative Action in favour of a minority, is there evidence that the distortion it created has normalised?

"Not since Nazi Germany's anti-semetic laws has the world seen such discriminatory legislation by a Govt against a minority of its citizens."

Wait, we're talking about Apartheid, right? Otherwise that is record-breaking hypocrisy. I mean, anyone defending Apartheid would surely want to avoid comparisons with Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, as that is clearly the most obvious precursor of Apartheid.

"Thanks to apartheid Mandela..."

The most significant thing Apartheid did for Mandela was to give him an evil to fight against.

In my opinion.

Laager said...

@ James

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the information I have given you those are he historical facts.

Now lets turn this whole thing around.

Imagine it is 1806.
You are are the representative of the British Govt sent to administer the Cape in Britains interests.

You (i.e your contingent of administrators and soldiers with a first world background and education) are a minority sent to rule over 2nd world Dutch colonists, supported by a greater number of slaves bought in from the East Indies with an unknown number of 3rd world black savages on your eastern border who constantly harass the settlers, stealing livestock, attacking homesteads and at times killing the inhabitants of these isolated settlements.

Your brief is to hold the Cape because of it's strategic value on the sea route to the east and show a profit from the colony.

What would you do and how would you go about it?

Laager said...

@ James M - Answers PART 1 - May 13th

"So the White man controlled their teritory, and they had no say in the White Man's?" - Correct.
Analogy:
Would you employ a motor mechanic to do a brain surgeons job?

Paraphrase
"It makes perfect sense for me to create a body where the ethnic minorities were satisfactorily represented" - Exactly
Which is why the whites (the minority) set themselves apart from the blacks and understanding that the whites came from a society entrenched in the British class system

"Clarify inferior"

"Inferior funding and provision of resources ..... were underfunded by..."
Bearing in mind that the policy was not to interfere with black tribal life.
They were free to continue with their traditional lifestyle and then cross over to western ways when it suited them.
No coercion as in Canada and Australia.
A UK parallel would be the case of travellers.
The funding was not inferior. It was tailored to the numbers that were in the process of crossing over.

"BTW the SA English were a smaller minority than Afrikaners and they had presided over this status quo from 1910 to 1948. So, it went from horrendously unrepresentative to just terribly unrepresentative?"

No
Just pointing out that the popular criticism of SA is to blame the Afrikaners for everything, when in fact the processes were created and maintained by the British/SA English for 76% of the time of white minority rule between 1806 and 1994

""Comparing...to Native Americans...is a losing strategy"
Meaning?"

Meaning Native Americans were the victims of attempted genocide, brutal attacks on men, women and children, and early germ warfare.

South African blacks were not the victims of attempted genocide, brutal attacks on men, women and children, (vice versa in fact - Read about the massacre of the Voortrekkers by the Zulus at Weenen) and early germ warfare. Their numbers increased from 3m to 35m due to the benevolent tax expenditure I have quoted. 76% of this population growth took place during the apartheid years from 1948 to 1990.

Laager said...

@ James M - Answers PART 2 - May 13th

"Wait, so were they being benevolent by making the Blacks live in the same manner they had for Centuries” - Yes (not "making", but leaving their way of life unchanged)

"And at the same time as they were being benevolent by trying to bring them into the 20th Century?” - Yes

Come on, pick an argument and stick to it. There is no argument to pick This is the situation that the Governments of the day had to contend with and this was their chosen solution.

"The Mfecane" "It's a horrible series of events"

You bet it was - blacks slaughtering blacks on a massive scale (And carefully concealed from the west by the liberal media I might add)

"caused in part, at least by the presence of the colonialists."
The colonialists had nothing to do with it. They were not even there yet - they were still in the Cape.
This took place in Natal, spreading to the Eastern Cape and to what is today the Eastern Orange free State and Eastern Transvaal c1828 and earlier.
Check the maps available on Google

Hence, when white authority was imposed the tribes were kept apart and the killing stopped.
More breeding blacks survived and contributed to their population explosion which the UN called A Crime Against Humanity

"The statistics on police deaths certainly make disturbing reading, but I really would like to see the sources and details for how they were recorded and calculated."
Contact the ANC

"What do you mean by "uncivilised?"" "Well, the kind of system you mentioned earlier, where might makes right, and society is constructed to create, unmerited massive inequality between the living standards of different groups."

You miss the point
The majority of blacks were tribal and were left alone to live as before in the rural areas. Those that migrated to the cities were better off than their brothers in other parts of Africa. (masonry housing etc.)
You can see this same level of inequality between white and black today in Haiti, Detroit, New Orleans and Brixton.
In SA's case go to Google Earth and look at Soweto (black) and Houghton (white) in Johannesburg - same land, same rainfall and same sunshine about 5 miles apart.

Why were the whites able to create the neighbourhoods they did and the blacks the neighbourhoods they did with exactly the same resources?

If you can explain that then you have solved one of the greatest mysteries of our time.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 14th - PART 1

 James Mathurin said... Part 2:



Unemployment up. Average life span down"


Sources and statistics please?
Check the archives on:
http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/

This blog is maintained by Adriana Stuijt a retired Dutch journalist now resident in the Netherlands. During her career she lived in South Africa for at least 20 years. She also worked for some of the countries major newspapers. In retirement she has made it her mission to record all these facts and to record what is becoming of the once most developed nation on the continent as it slides into the abyss under black rule.
----------------------------------------

Also refer to the article by Vusili Tshabala on:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/321.htm

JOHN MARK MINISTRIES
THINKING MATURELY ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

The Killing Fields Of Post-Apartheid South Africa
BY ROWLAND CROUCHER AND OTHERS . 2 JULY 2003
----------------------------------------

My main question would be whether it included the unemployment and life spans within the Bantustans under Apartheid, seeing as they offered a very easy beauracratic dodge to not count poor statistics.

Why would the government want to do that?
This was their flagship PR tool - demonstrating to the world the houses, schools and hospitals they created, the civil services they established and the enterprise zones they created to attract business investment to these areas to create employment.

Check Vusili’s article
and
Mike Smith’s Pandora’s Box series


"Aids increasing - Mbeki denied it existed
"
I am really glad that Mandela has started to campaign more vocally about the truth of HIV and AIDS, but the governmental position was just awful."

Mandela is 90+ years old and effectively past it.
He gets wheeled out by the ANC as their premier PR icon as at the FWC 2010, mumbles a few platitudes which the left wing liberal world swoons over, and then is parked safely in his mansion in Houghton.

The ANC Govt continues as before by doing nothing.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 14th - PART 2

James Mathurin said... Part 2:



"South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in favour of the majority that has virtually complete political and economic control!"



So what percentage of the economy is controlled by Blacks?

About 10%. Again you miss the point.

Black South Africans have had 16 years to demonstrate their capability to the rest of the world and this % has barely changed.
Compare that to what Japan and Germany achieved post WWII in the same time frame.

"And considering that Apartheid represented massive Affirmative Action in favour of a minority."

Wrong.
Take a look at the population disposition and you will find that there were more blacks in employment than whites during the evil apartheid era.
All these jobs were created for them by white people.

"Is there evidence that the distortion it created has normalised?"

Today there are about 30,000 vacant posts in the South African civil service.
There are white people available with the qualifications to fill these posts but the ANC Govt refuses to employ them simply because they are white.
There are no blacks available to fill these posts.

Go to censorbugbear-reports and read the articles on the politically induced starvation that white people are experiencing because they are excluded from the job market simply because they are white.



"Not since Nazi Germany's anti-semetic laws has the world seen such discriminatory legislation by a Govt against a minority of its citizens."



Wait, we're talking about Apartheid, right?

Yes.
Please list the evils of apartheid that seem to bother you so much

This is record-breaking hypocrisy. I mean, anyone defending Apartheid would surely want to avoid comparisons with Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, as that is clearly the most obvious precursor of Apartheid.

Again you miss the point:

Quote from page 42:
 
NELSON MANDELA - IN HIS OWN WORDS  (FROM HIS CLOSING STATEMENT AT HIS TREASON TRIAL)

FROM FREEDOM TO THE FUTURE  
----------------------------------------STRUGGLE
  DURING MY LIFE TIME I HAVE DEDICATED MYSELF TO THIS STRUGGLE OF THE AFRICAN PEOPLE.     I HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST WHITE DOMINATION, AND I HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST BLACK DOMINATION. I HAVE CHERISHED THE IDEAL OF A DEMOCRATIC AND FREE SOCIETY IN WHICH ALL PERSONS LIVE TOGETHER IN HARMONY AND WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES. IT IS AN IDEAL WHICH I HOPE TO LIVE FOR AND TO ACHIEVE.
BUT IF NEEDS BE IT IS AN IDEAL FOR WHICH I AM PREPARED TO DIE
----------------------------------------



It looks like the ANC has lost the plot and abandoned the ideals of their symbolic icon Mandela who championed their struggle.
The current discriminatory laws have been promulgated by the incumbent black majority ANC Govt.
You are right. This is record-breaking hypocrisy

“The most significant thing Apartheid did for Mandela was to give him an evil to fight against.”

And materially he has done pretty well out of it. How many people do you know that after having been in jail with no income for 27 years left as millionaires? And what of his partner Oliver Tambo who received no income from employment in exile. He lived very, very well thanks to support from the liberals in Sweden I believe.
Do another investigation. Contact Mandela’s Children’s Fund. Find out what their income has been over the years. Then find out what their expenditure on projects has been over the same time frame. Then pull out your calculator and start doing some arithmetic.

James Mathurin said...

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the information I have given you those are he historical facts."

And I don't think I have disagreed with those facts. I've just tried to point out reasons why I interpret those facts differently to you, and why I disagree with some of your interpretations.

"
Imagine it is 1806.
You are are the representative of the British Govt sent to administer the Cape in Britains interests.

...

What would you do and how would you go about it?
"

Well, being raised as a Briton in the 19th Century, I would probably believe that the British Empire and British power were the most important things in my life, so I would look at a way of making the cape serve the interests of Britain, economically, militarily and politically.

Also, having been raised in a less enlightened time, and having been educated in the orthodxy that differences in melanin determined whether or not someone was truly 'human', I would have seen the indigenous people of the Cape as a resourceto be managed, much like crops or livestock. In fact, I would have been insulted if anyone had had the temerity to perhaps suggest that I negotiate, enter diplomatic relations with, or even regard them as in any way being my equals.

Besides, diplomacy being the long and tedious process it is, and knowing that many other people would be snapping at my heels, I would have decided that controlling and subduing the Dutch settlers and indigenous peoples by means of force would probably be the most expeditious way to accomplish my goals.

I certainly wouldn't have considered the long-term consequences of my decisions, particularly to the settlers already there, or to the indigenous peoples. Coming from such a rigid and stratified society as I did, and presumably being either from the aristocracy or the higher middle class, I would have believed that I was eminently qualified to make these decisions, simply by accident of my birth.

In short, I would have done pretty much what was done, and it would have been just as stupid and damaging as those decisions were.

Laager said...

@ james M

We are touching on a whole range of topics in this interchange.
Let me address the issue of the Black Policeman's Association again

I said:

"It is already happening in Britain
A white policeman can't be a member of the Black Policeman's Association
Previously there was only the Policeman's Association, open to all regardless of race

You replied:

Well, there you're getting into a whole series of discussions. What it boils down to, for me, is whether the ethnic minorities in the police force felt that the Policeman's Association was satisfactorily representing them. If not, it makes perfect sense to create a body to do so, although hopefully that will not always be necessary.

From your reasoning would you find it acceptable for the old/existing association to be re-named:
The White Policeman's Association
"to satisfactorily represent them ..... it makes perfect sense to create a body to do so,"

James Mathurin said...

"Analogy:
Would you employ a motor mechanic to do a brain surgeons job?
"

So white mechanics in South Africa get no vote? Besides, this is democray we're talking about - everyone gets a vote unless they are a criminal or psychologically unable.

"Which is why the whites (the minority) set themselves apart from the blacks and understanding that the whites came from a society entrenched in the British class system"

Well, again, you make a weak analogy. The members of the BPA did not set themselves up as a separate police force, or try to create rules that only applied to their members.

"Bearing in mind that the policy was not to interfere with black tribal life. "

...Except by telling them where they could live, where they go, and who could lead them (by only allowing leaders friendly to the regime). Very minimal interference.

"No coercion as in Canada and Australia. "

Canada? We talked about the USA, but not Canada, so far. Also, are you suggesting there was no violence or brutality in the way Apartheid was enforced?

"A UK parallel would be the case of travellers."

In what way?

"The funding was not inferior. It was tailored to the numbers that were in the process of crossing over."

Oh, so only Blacks who wanted to 'cross over' were deserving of healthcare, adequate education and equal rights? What did white people have to do to earn that same level of support?

"Just pointing out that the popular criticism of SA is to blame the Afrikaners for everything, when in fact the processes were created and maintained by the British/SA English for 76% of the time of white minority rule between 1806 and 1994"

OK, but I didn't make that criticism, so it seemed a bit confusing.

"South African blacks were not the victims of attempted genocide, brutal attacks on men, women and children"

You were the one who said they were treated in a comparable way to the Native Americans, not me.

Anonymous said...

Sarah

WOW This is some good reading and having someone like James around, is excellent as it gives you the chance to really point out the facts and it shows that liberals only rely on propaganda and myth.

The curse of South Africa have always been its minerals. This is why the Anglo Boer war was fought and why the globalists had to demonize apartheid.

Anonymous said...

This ongoing mental joust appears to have a circular route leading nowhere, and will end as an exercise of futility, in my estimation.

Cutting to the chase; Mixing of the races only adds more turmoil to the business of living our everyday lives, and "illuminati" social engineers are fully aware of the intended consequences of this sinister plan.

White western countries, and only white countries are force-fed a steady diet of multi-racialism leading to even more fodder designed to maintain an agitated state of existence among the goyim slaves.

....and similar to 19th century western industrialisation, 19th and 20th century colonialism is akin to exploitation of the masses, as in a multitude of cogs in multiple wheels upon multiple wheels, and all operated by select groups whose hands operate the levers.

Here's a video worth watching explaining how you're indoctrinated and maintained as a "human resource" as opposed to a sovereign human being.

....ok, I've said my piece, carry on with your debate.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 16 - PART 1

James, we are covering an increasing number of points so I will respond to them in individual bytes as the comments section is not big enough to cope with long replies

I am surprised at your comments regarding slavery, colonialism and apartheid in particular. I can only put it down to the fact that your information comes from the carefully selected point of view presented to the British public by the LWL media over the last 100 years

That is why the BNP is having such a struggle here. They state solid facts and are accused of being facists and racists when all they are doing is alerting the British to what awaits them down the road of multi-culturism, diversity and enrichment. Scandinavia, Australia and other European countries are waking up and changing their rules of entry and residence accordingly. South Africa was the living workshop that has endeavoured to manage this situation first over the last 240 years. However the liberal west knew better and has imposed their system on the country which is leading to its social and economic ruin like Zimbabwe

Most of the facts that I offer you are based on my personal experiences, observation and reading. I lived there for 40 years during the apartheid era. Bear in mind that South Africa is as big as western Europe. What I comment on took place on the East side of the country in Natal where I lived. I’m obviously not up to speed with all events in all parts of the country. That is why I say apartheid was different things to different people in different parts of the country

From first events, here is a brief history of how the country unfolded

I confine my comments to the English speaking New World

First white settlers
South Africa - Dutch 1652, British 1795 & 1806
USA - Spanish 1513, English 1607 & 1620
Canada - French 1605, Scottish 1629, English 1689
Australia - British 1788
New Zealand - British 1840

You can see that whites have as much right to call South Africa home as the rest of the English New World does

In all these territories the settlers were far more technically advanced than the inhabitants they found there. Settlers came with technology, developed governmental systems, literacy and the Christian Religion

White settlers in SA did not steal anything.
They occupied available land and introduced the benefits of western civilisation. Over time the locals crossed over to western ways and abandoned their tribal lifestyle in favour of western urban living and industrialisation - at their own pace

In all these territories settlers developed co-habitation systems with the locals.
In the USA there were wars, forced removals and the creation of reservations.
In Australia there was Aboriginal hunting.
In Canada and Australia the locals were “civilised” by forcibly removing children from their tribal environments and placing them in western schools in western clothing and forcing them to learn English and Christianity

..... continued

Laager said...

@ James M - May 16 - PART 2

In South Africa the British waged war against the Dutch 2x, the Xhosa 7x, the Voortrekkers once, the Zulu 3x, the Tswana once and the Boere/Afrikaners 2x as they conquered and consolidated the territory to create The Union of South Africa in 1910. They forced the Dutch to speak English and changed the names of their towns from Dutch to English.
They did not follow the Canadian and Australian models of coercing the local black people into western ways. Here they followed the USA Reservation route and created Native Reserves - later Bantustans/Homelands. The policy was to leave the locals alone to continue their tribal life in their traditional territories. As and when blacks chose to westernise and cross over into the white mans world they abided by the laws that governed these areas. This voluntary process of westernisation has been taking place from c1770 to the present

Prior to 1806 the Dutch East India Company ruled the Cape. Thereafter the British ruled this colony and newly conquered territories. You can follow the full legislative process of this evolution on:

http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site

A plethora of laws created by white governments evolved between 1806 and 1948 which controlled the lives of black people when they entered the white man’s world. When the National Party came to power in 1948 they gave this status quo the name of Apartheid = Segregation.

As the Afrikaners had not created the Union in 1910 they had no desire to integrate with or rule the 9 Black tribes. This stemmed from their experience when the Voortrekkers arrived in peace in Natal in 1838 and negotiated with the Zulus to occupy unoccupied land. The Zulus renaged on the deal and massacred the the advance party of Voortrekkers.

Black-white relations were set from that day on.
In a reprisal engagement at the battle of Blood River later in the year the Voortrekkers defeated the Zulu and resolved to live apart forever after. This experience drove the policy of Seperate Development whereby white taxes were poured into the Homelands to raise them to a standard of self government on a par with with Lesotho and Swaziland.

Remember that the majority of black South Africans in the homelands were illiterate, subsistence farming, third world peasants who paid no taxes and did not operate a tax system focussed on their upliftment. All of this support came from the minority white population and the tax revenue they generated.

In addition they established themselves in the villages and towns in the Homelands to educate the blacks and provide technology transfers to uplift them into the commercial and industrial ways of the west.

At first the educational institutions were provided by the churches and later became the responsibility of the state.

At the same time black languages, culture, customs and traditions were protected and maintained.

Compare that to the slaves that were transported to the USA. They have lost their languages and roots and struggle to be westerners when their genetic heritage is African.

..... continued

Shaunantijihad said...

I am total agreement with James on this. James said,

"It was either dangerously inept, or disgustingly cynical. The groups involved in those were suddenly forced to share a country, where they would have lived separately before."

James is quite right in pointing out that even Negroes who are far more similar to each other than Caucasians, but of different tribes, cannot live peacefully together. Therefore, it is impossible for even more dissimilar Caucasians and Negroes to share a land.

Such a situation does indeed result in terrible inequalities, such as one group (white) paying 90% of the taxes, but only receiving 46% of it from the tax collectors.

This is also a good description of the evil of socialism, where we have a situation in Britain where 50% of male Muslims and 75% of female Muslims have never worked and live of the work of others, who are effectively wage slaves to those living off their largesse.

Clearly, these very different groups, as James points out, should not be "suddenly forced to share a country". The only just solution is for whites to have their own country and to receive 100% of the taxes they pay. The same for Muslims and Negroes. Separation. No aid, no moving of wealth. Just separation.

Excellent work James. I thoroughly agree.

James Mathurin said...

The censorbugbear blog seems to be all or mainly in non-English. Could you at least highlight partiular pages, so I can translate them, or, preferably, just tell me Stuijt's references for her statistics, so I can look straight at that.

The other link was certainly interesting, and does highlight some specific failings of the Mbeki government. He has not exactly impressed, but there are rubbish politicians the world over. To argue that it somehow validates Apartheid is a huge leap of logic though.

"
Why would the government want to do that?
This was their flagship PR tool - demonstrating to the world the houses, schools and hospitals they created, the civil services they established and the enterprise zones they created to attract business investment to these areas to create employment.
"

Well, that's my point - it allowed them to maintain the fiction of the bantustans. By not collecting accurate figures on health, death rates, education levels, etc, on the grounds that the Bantustans were independent states, they could make it look as though the living conditions in the country were better than they were. I am not saying they did do this, but it's a valid concern - anyone morally bankrupt enough to enforce and maintain Apartheid, is not going to be above spinning a few statistics. It should be simple to confirm - do Apartheid-era statistics only include the parts of the country the governemnt reognised as "South Africa" (the White parts), or do they inlude all of what makes modern South Africa?

"The ANC Govt continues as before by doing nothing. "

On AIDS, at least, haven't they changed their position a bit? Besides, now you have a democratic system, the ANC could be voted out, and it sounds like they are heading that way. The good thing is that whoever replaces them will be chosen democratically by the country, and not imposed because of the will of a minority.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 16 - PART 3

The west objected to the system and insisted that SA remain a unitary, fully integrated western capitalist democratic state. The mess you see there today is a direct consequence of this policy to dismantle apartheid and white minority rule.

Remember, nowhere on the planet have black people created a country to compare with SA. Now here they are catapulted into managing a first world industrial capitalist democratic economy. No wonder we see daily failures in every aspect of the country’s activities.

To expand on the information I have sketched out above read the following from Google and on Wikipedia :

Great Trek, The Voortrekkers, Battle of Vegkop, Piet Retief Massacre, Weenen Massacre (aka Bloukrans), The Battle of Blood River, Battle of Congella.

For the real detail on apartheid that I have given you, read:

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

Read the Pandora’s Box series of 30 articles. Then compare these true facts, and omissions, with what the UK media has been reporting over the years.

To see what has become of the Johannesburg CBD since 1994 refer to:

http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/

View in conjunction with the article on Google:
Ross Benson - Johannesburg - Death of a city

Compare this to what has become of Detroit 0n:

http://white-history.com/hwrdet.htm

and follow the links in this article.

Then go to Google and Wikipedia and read all you can on Liberia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina and perhaps you will start to understand what the BNP is getting concerned about.

Other references worth looking at which record black violence and racism in South Africa post 1994 are:

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/

http://dienuwesuidafrika.blogspot.com/2010/03/
Read the English articles in both columns

And here is an independent viewpoint by a respected American source

http://www.genocidewatch.org/
Search for comments on the Boer Genocide here

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that you have a broad brush background of South African events I will answer your detailed points

1
"Analogy:
Would you employ a motor mechanic to do a brain surgeons job?"
So white mechanics in South Africa get no vote? Besides, this is democracy we're talking about - everyone gets a vote unless they are a criminal or psychologically unable.

You have missed the point This was a metaphor to describe the level of capability and education between the settlers and the locals. This has been proven many times by the track records of African countries once they gained independence from their colonial rulers.
To quote a cliche’: ‘Take the white man out of Africa and Africa goes back to the bush” For some non political independent visuals go to i Player and watch the movie Blood Diamonds. Take a good look at the scenes shot in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
..... continued / P4

Laager said...

@ James M - May 16 - PART 4

2
"Which is why the whites (the minority) set themselves apart from the blacks and understanding that the whites came from a society entrenched in the British class system"
Well, again, you make a weak analogy. The members of the BPA did not set themselves up as a separate police force, or try to create rules that only applied to their members.
You miss the point again You agree with the idea of a separate association based on race within the greater whole - right? That is segregation = apartheid = A Crime Against Humanity according to the UN
In SA for prior to 1994 for example you had separate hospitals for blacks and whites delivering the same quality of health care. What is the difference to the above example? It also made a lot of sense because the segregated hospitals were located in the appropriate residential areas. Incidentally there were many white doctors working in the black hospitals. I know this to be true as I had family and friends working in them. Later, as apartheid started collapsing you had coloured and black nurses working in the white hospitals. All these staff members operated through single staff associations.
3
"Bearing in mind that the policy was not to interfere with black tribal life. "
...Except by telling them where they could live, where they go, and who could lead them (by only allowing leaders friendly to the regime). Very minimal interference.
Wrong Go to Google and google Earth and find the homelands Zulus lived with Zulus and Vendas lived with Vendas in their trditional territories. For example; Transkei the Xhosa Homeland is the size of Switzerland. Now how does that differ with Scotland, Wales, England and N Ireland within the UK 

4 "No coercion as in Canada and Australia. "
Canada? We talked about the USA, but not Canada, so far.
Refer to my summary in the last paragraph of Part 1
Also, are you suggesting there was no violence or brutality in the way Apartheid was enforced?
I presume you are referring to the photos of police controlling the riots in the townships? No different to what I have seen here in the UK controlling the Poll Tax riots. Yes people were shot and killed.
Imagine being a policeman on duty sent to control a civil disturbance. You are outnumbered at least 10 to 1. If the armed crowd can get hold of you they will kill you. Would you. or would you not defend yourself?
During the disturbances between 1990 and 1994 (remember; apartheid had been abolished in Feb 1990 by Pres de Klerk) a school friend (white) of mine, whilst going about his job, unfortunately happened to turn down a street and was confronted by a hysterical mob (black) on their way to a protest. Before he could turn around and get out he was dragged out of his car and hacked and stoned to death. TIA = This Is Africa. the rules of engagement are a bit different to the UK. Totally innocent. He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
..... continued / P5

Laager said...

@ James M - May 16 - PART 5

5 "A UK parallel would be the case of travellers."
In what way?
Bearing in mind that the policy was not to interfere with black tribal life Read: Interfere with the traditional way of life of The Travellers.

6 "The funding was not inferior. It was tailored to the numbers that were in the process of crossing over."
Oh, so only Blacks who wanted to 'cross over' were deserving of healthcare, adequate education and equal rights? What did white people have to do to earn that same level of support?

You are wide open on this point James. Pre 1994 as a schoolboy in the country districts I observed that blacks and whites received the same health care in a hospital operated at a Catholic mission station. For more complicated cases all patients were transferred to the nearest major town by ambulance operated by the local volunteer Red Cross organisation - funded and staffed by white people. In the major town patients were admitted to segregated hospitals and received equal quality health care. It was an NHS type system where care was free for blacks and virtually free for whites. In the villages black and white were treated by the same (white) GPs. Blacks paid a flat rate of R1 regardless of treatment and medicines and whites paid the GPs commercial rate plus bought their medicine at the local chemist shop. Pre 1994 as an adult I spent 10 years of my life procuring hospitals and schools for black people both in Government employment and private practice. All of these services - buildings and staff that manned them (training and salaries) - were payed for out of taxes generated mainly by white people. The 5m white minority was carrying the 35m black majority. See what I mean by the UK media not telling you these facts



7 "Just pointing out that the popular criticism of SA is to blame the Afrikaners for everything, when in fact the processes were created and maintained by the British/SA English for 76% of the time of white minority rule between 1806 and 1994"
OK, but I didn't make that criticism, so it seemed a bit confusing.
Once again your opinion has been informed by the information the media has been feeding, and not feeding, you. Two of the big myths were that the Afrikaners created apartheid. Not true. Read the facts on the O’Malley Heart of Hope site from the link that I have provided. As stated before, the National Party (mainly Afrikaners but many English speakers also supported this party) only ruled South Africa from 1948 to 1994 - Union: 1948 to 1961 - Republic 1961 to 1994)

..... continued / P6

Laager said...

@ James M - May 16 - PART 6


8 "South African blacks were not the victims of attempted genocide, brutal attacks on men, women and children"

You were the one who said they were treated in a comparable way to the Native Americans, not me

You missed the point again.

Correct; During the colonial expansion era SA blacks were NEVER enslaved, nor were they the victims of brutal attacks on men, women and children.
This happened in the USA - e.g Wounded Knee.

Where the comparison came was that after these events the Indians were confined to Reservations - in some cases not on their traditional land.
e.g. The Cherokee were marched from Florida to Oklahoma.

Whereas in South Africa the Native Reserves/Bantustans/Homelands were created on the land that the tribes were occupying.
Today about 80% of these territories are still intact. White people could not settle (i.e farm) in these territories except in the supply and administrative villages they had created.
e.g. in the Transkei the largest of these grew into the towns of King Williams Town and Umtata.
----------------------------------------
There you go James.
I hope that I have answered all you points satisfactorily and provided you with enough background to fully inform yourself.
Any other criticisms and challenges you may have I will gladly answer

James Mathurin said...

"In South Africa the British waged war against the Dutch 2x, the Xhosa 7x, the Voortrekkers once, the Zulu 3x, the Tswana once and the Boere/Afrikaners 2x as they conquered and consolidated the territory to create The Union of South Africa in 1910. They forced the Dutch to speak English and changed the names of their towns from Dutch to English. "

Typical colonialist behaviour. I'm not surprised, and that is my problem with colonialism.

"They did not follow the Canadian and Australian models of coercing the local black people into western ways."

In Austrlia, at least, 'coerce' is an understatement. Abducting mixed-race children, raping, mutilating and slaughtering other children and their parents. Also, the Australian Aboriginees are not 'Black' as you have been using the term, but rather Eastern Asians whose skins had darkened because of their environment. I mention that because people who sort the races into hierarchies tend to put Africans and Asians on very different levels.

"Here they followed the USA Reservation route and created Native Reserves - later Bantustans/Homelands"

So, what kind of arrogance gave them the right to do that? If you want to live in another country, a decent person would live alongside the natives, not take the best land for yourself, and force them into the bits you don't need. If that's not good enough for you, tough.

"The policy was to leave the locals alone to continue their tribal life in their traditional territories."

If that honestly was the policy, they would not have taken those territories on the first place.

"As and when blacks chose to westernise and cross over into the white mans world they abided by the laws that governed these areas."

No, they abided by much harsher and extreme laws than the laws which governend the Whites.

"A plethora of laws created by white governments evolved between 1806 and 1948 which controlled the lives of black people when they entered the white man’s world. "

Again, no, they controlled the lives of Black people everywhere they went in the country.

"As the Afrikaners had not created the Union in 1910 they had no desire to integrate with or rule the 9 Black tribes."

It shouldn't have been up to them to integrate, or at least live as equals with them, and the question of ruling them should never have come up.

"Black-white relations were set from that day on."

The same way that British - American relationships were set by the US civil war, or British - French relationships were set by Waterloo, or British - Spanish by Trafalgur? The way the Apartheid governmet treated the Blacks couldn't justify revenge attacks, any more than the Zulu betrayal against the Voortrekers justified Apartheid.

Besides, even if everything you claim is true, you are still defending a benevolent dictatorship, and I think your case ends there.

"Compare that to the slaves that were transported to the USA. They have lost their languages and roots and struggle to be westerners when their genetic heritage is African."

And you had to sneak that in, didn't you? They are Westerners. It's as simple as that.

James Mathurin said...

"James is quite right in pointing out that even Negroes who are far more similar to each other than Caucasians, but of different tribes, cannot live peacefully together. "

Thanks, Shaun. I didn't point that out, or believe it, but thats still nice of you to say. I was pointing out that specific groups that have a history of enmity towards each other should probably not be forced to form a new country.

"Therefore, it is impossible for even more dissimilar Caucasians and Negroes to share a land. "

Oh, I see what you're doing there! No, you're wrong. Nice leap in logic, though.

"This is also a good description of the evil of socialism, where we have a situation in Britain where 50% of male Muslims and 75% of female Muslims have never worked and live of the work of others, who are effectively wage slaves to those living off their largesse."

Any evidence for that?

"Clearly, these very different groups, as James points out, should not be "suddenly forced to share a country". "

Fair enough, except no one's forcing them to do anything. Suddenly, or otherwise.

"The only just solution is for whites to have their own country and to receive 100% of the taxes they pay. The same for Muslims and Negroes. Separation. No aid, no moving of wealth. Just separation."

Some Muslims are White. Some Blacks are Muslim. What about aid for unemployed Whites? What happens if someone needs to trade between one of these new countries or another? Will they still not be allowed to live in that country?

I'm sorry, I just see a number of problems with this, and while it could sound like a workable solution to, say, one of the Primary school children I teach, I don't think it's at all workable in the real world.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 17 - PART 1

1
“The censorbugbear blog seems to be all or mainly in non-English.”

Wrong. 99% of her posts are in English.
You just happened to log on to the Dutch articles and were too lazy to go beyond them

2 “Could you at least highlight particular pages ------ so I can look straight at that.”

No. Do it yourself. That is what I did. Search for the information yourself lazybones. It will do you the world of good and remove you from the darkness you live in.



3 “The other link was certainly interesting, and does highlight some specific failings of the Mbeki government. He has not exactly impressed, but there are rubbish politicians the world over. To argue that it somehow validates Apartheid is a huge leap of logic though.”

You missed the point again. I’m not trying to validate apartheid. The issue is that black South Africans convinced the world that they were oppressed and were being denied opportunities to manage their own affairs successfully (which they were not as the Homelands development policy was addressing that aspect of upliftment, education and training)

They have now had 16 years to prove their capability and all the world can see what dismal failures they are besides being corrupt, racist and incompetent. But I suppose the left wing liberals are delighted as they are living their proxy dream through Mbeki, Zuma and Malema and their cohorts. 



4 “Why would the government want to do that? ..... (paraphrase - demonstrating their Christian concern for the development of the black man.)
“Well, that's my point - it allowed them to maintain the fiction of the bantustans. By not collecting accurate figures on health, death rates, education levels, etc, on the grounds that the Bantustans were independent states”

You really should read more before you start writing and put your foot in it. Only three of the Homelands felt they were ready to opt for independence - Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana. So the the statistics of 6 would be the responsibility of the Republic
You would have to get the statistics of the others from their civil services - if they bothered to keep any. Go and read the link I gave you to the article by Vusili Tshabalala before you waste my time with this point again
..... continued/P2

Laager said...

@ James M - May 17 - PART 2

5 "The ANC Govt continues as before by doing nothing. "
“On AIDS, at least, haven't they changed their position a bit? Besides, now you have a democratic system,”

There always was a democratic system. In the white mans world we followed the Westminster model.
Remember I told you that the policy was not to interfere with the traditional tribal lifestyle of black Kings, Princes and Paramount Chiefs that ruled by hereditary decree.
In their world the people did as they were told. Blacks were only exposed to the concept of democracy with the arrival of the white man in 1652 and on-going contacts since c1770.

Once blacks saw the benefits of the system they started engaging with it it.
That is what the homelands policy was all about. Introduce Westminster style democracy at their own pace.

6
“the ANC could be voted out, and it sounds like they are heading that way. The good thing is that whoever replaces them will be chosen democratically by the country, and not imposed because of the will of a minority.”

You don’t read much do you? President Zuma has publically stated that the ANC will rule until the second coming of Christ. Look across the border at Zimbabwe.
What do you see there?
Election fraud of the highest order in every election since black majority rule.
What makes you think it will be any different south of the Limpopo River.

You are living in la-la land.

If you want to see African democracy in action take a look at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Yj5EnP-xU

Now where is the outcry from the liberal left like yourself?
Where is the condemnation by the United Nations that this is a crime against humanity?

Laager said...

@ James M

If you are naive enough to believe that democracy will work in South Africa, take a look at today's post on:

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

Shaunantijihad said...

James, The figures are in the EHRC's How Fair is Britain report.

You seem to live in ignorance that there were almost no Muslims and Negroes living in Britain at the end of WW2, a situation pretty much unchanged for thousands of years, during which time we managed to trade with the world, despite your arrogant assertion that such a historical reality could only be workable in the mind of a primary school child. How disdainful about our wonderful history! And you a teacher at that!

And yes, the massive influx of foreigners in just 60 years does qualify as being "suddenly forced to share a country". "Forced", yes indeed, in the sense that the indigenous population are forced to fund the dispossession of their nation through forced social security to so many uninvited economic migrants. Who do you think pays for some Somali to turn up with her 10 kids and demand the right to a million pound house to live and all the costly benefits and social services? Go to Migration watch and see how much every immigrant costs the taxpayer. You will be shocked.

Then you try to sidestep your own point that groups not traditionally conducive to living together should not be forced to do so in the case of African tribes by European colonialists, but that it is perfectly ok for "International colonialists" to force this upon groups even less similar!

And whilst you are right in pointing out that Islam is not a race, I included the Muslims as they too are an un-assimilable element, and an extremely dangerous one at that.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 1

1
“Typical colonialist behaviour. I'm not surprised, and that is my problem with colonialism.”
Except for the fact that it made some people back in the UK very rich and in many ways improved the quality of life for the masses in the home country - e.g. sugar; destinations to immigrate to to escape their working class lives in Britain and enable them to improve their lot in life.

For the locals it enabled people like Mandela to throw away their animal hides and wear lounge suits and become lawyers practicing Roman-Dutch law - an occupation that did not exist in black society until the white man arrived



2 “In Australia, at least, 'coerce' is an understatement”.

“Abducting mixed-race children,” There were no mixed race children in Australia until the British settlers arrived and started sleeping with the locals

“raping, mutilating and slaughtering other children and their parents.” I’ll accept your word on this point

“Also, the Australian Aboriginals are not 'Black' as you have been using the term, but rather Eastern Asians whose skins had darkened because of their environment”.
Are you sure? I recall a recent TV documentary stating that all mankind was descendant from black Africans and how they migrated across the planet when the various land bridges existed

3

“So, what kind of arrogance gave them the right to do that? If you want to live in another country, a decent person would live alongside the natives,” If you can explain the creation of Northern Ireland to me then this point is covered.

“not take the best land for yourself, and force them into the bits you don't need”
Wrong! Big time! The Transkei is (or should I say “was” - it is now seriously ruined through soil erosion [check it out on Google Earth]) some of the finest land in South Africa which white people were NOT allowed to settle on. As I have said umpteen times before - the tribes were left to reside on the land that THEY HAD ALWAYS OCCUPIED. If you see this as inferior then that it is an idea in your head that you have to live with

4

"The policy was to leave the locals alone to continue their tribal life in their traditional territories." "If that honestly was the policy, they would not have taken those territories on the first place."

You talk in riddles. The settlers settled on vacant land. At most there were about 1 to 2 million blacks spread over an area the size of western Europe. There was space for whites to settle in-between them on unoccupied land


..... continued/P2

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 2


5 "As and when blacks chose to westernise and cross over into the white mans world they abided by the laws that governed these areas."
“No, they abided by much harsher and extreme laws than the laws which governed the Whites.”

Name them and provide the detail



6 "A plethora of laws created by white governments evolved between 1806 and 1948 which controlled the lives of black people when they entered the white man’s world. "

“Again, no, they controlled the lives of Black people everywhere they went in the country.”

Again: Name them and refer me to the source of your information.

7
"
As the Afrikaners had not created the Union in 1910 they had no desire to integrate with or rule the 9 Black tribes."

“It shouldn't have been up to them to integrate, or at least live as equals with them, and the question of ruling them should never have come up.”

Do you actually read and understand the information I give you?
The Voortrekkers were attacked and massacred by the Xhosa, Matabele and Zulu. The blacks were the initial aggressors. The British, following their conquests, then constructed this multi-culti nation without consulting anyone. The Afrikaners then came to power and set about uplifting the blacks and releasing them from white control - i.e. the development of the Homelands leading to their political freedom and self determination.
The United Nations declared this A crime Against Humanity 



8 "Black-white relations were set from that day on."
“The way the Apartheid government treated the Blacks couldn't justify revenge attacks,”

A bit confusing. The Voortrekkers came in peace. The Zulus deceived them by appearing to be friendly at first and then massacred them. The Voortrekkers then had to fight for their very survival/existence at Blood River as they would not return to the Cape and the British oppression they were escaping. Eventually the Voortrekkers actually left Zululand/Natal and settled in what became the Transvaal and Orange Free State. It was the British that then arrived in Natal and established segregation/Apartheid with the Zulus through the Native Reserves they created

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 3

9 “Besides, even if everything you claim is true, you are still defending a benevolent dictatorship, and I think your case ends there.”

Everything I say is true. I am simply repeating my reading from history books and the www. It is available for you too if you make the effort to search for it. I am not defending anything. I am stating the facts as they happened and as I saw and experienced them. The purpose of all this effort is to assist you in questioning the information you have been fed over the years by the media in this country. And as you say - “it was a benevolent dictatorship” - which the blacks did pretty well out of. Are you aware that they are starting to say that life was better under the apartheid governments that the ANC? Surprise! surprise!



10 "Compare that to the slaves that were transported to the USA. They have lost their languages and roots and struggle to be westerners when their genetic heritage is African."


“And you had to sneak that in, didn't you? They are Westerners. It's as simple as that.”

I did not “sneak” anything in. I stated a simple obvious visible truth. They may speak dialects of English and wear western apparel but they are NOT westerners. It is as simple as that.
Check out the links I have given you on Detroit, New Orleans, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the death of Johannesburg and then refer me to similar behaviour and destruction by white westerners living amongst Africans anywhere in Africa and the developed world for that matter.

11 "James is quite right in pointing out that even Negroes who are far more similar to each other than Caucasians, but of different tribes, cannot live peacefully together. "

Well that is what the Mfecane was all about in South Africa c1828 BEFORE there was any contact with the white man in that part of the country



12 “Thanks, Shaun. I didn't point that out, or believe it, but thats still nice of you to say. I was pointing out that specific groups that have a history of enmity towards each other should probably not be forced to form a new country.”

Well this is exactly what the British did in 1910 when they created the Union of South Africa.Peculiarly the United Nations did agree when it passed a resolution in the 70s declaring apartheid;
"A Crime Against Humanity" when the Govt of the day was in the process of unravelling this forced integration in a peaceful manner and at the same time providing the financial, administrative and business development support for these territories to be self sustaining states.

We seem to be agreeing on something.


..... continued / P4

James Mathurin said...

"The mess you see there today is a direct consequence of this policy to dismantle apartheid and white minority rule."

Well, keep telling yourself that. Seriously, you are entitled to your opinion, but you're stating it as fact here.

"Remember, nowhere on the planet have black people created a country to compare with SA."

Considering the conditions that were necessary to maintain that, I don't think that's a bad thing. Founding a society on a basis of inequality is always going to end badly.

"Now here they are catapulted into managing a first world industrial capitalist democratic economy."

You really think South Africa was First World? Considering Australia only just got its classification as First World this year, I don't think you can argue that South Africa was ahead of it.

What exactly makes that blog 'the real deal on Apartheid?' I flicked through it, and saw a few comments about the myth of Black intellectual inferiority. A couple of comments on different subjects appeared more connected to reality, but it doesn't strike me as being consistent.

"Read the Pandora’s Box series of 30 articles."

No, I've got better things to do than trudge through those 30 articles. Copy and paste, or link to the bits that you believe are significant and I will be happy to respond.

I certainly found this article interesting on the genocidewatch site. Still, no matter how bad the ANC and their supporters might be (and that case certainly shows them in a bad light), it still doesn't retroactively make Apartheid any better.

"This was a metaphor to describe the level of capability and education between the settlers and the locals."

Capability? Black people can put a cross on paper. They can choose candidates. This is not some special, transcendental quality of White people. Education, certainly was a problem. Not surprising, considering the terrible underfunding of native infrastructure and education I pointed out earlier.

"This has been proven many times by the track records of African countries once they gained independence from their colonial rulers. "

Again, that is your interpretation. I see it more as the legacy of colonialism, as we are discussing here.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 4

13 "Therefore, it is impossible for even more dissimilar Caucasians and Negroes to share a land.”

The National Party would agree with you 100% Shaun The reality of this state of affairs is being played out in South Africa right now with a daily murder rate of 50+/day of which 80% is black on black and the remainder being the other ethnic groups in South Africa.
The common denominator in all this mayhem is that blacks are consistently the aggressors 



14 "This is also a good description of the evil of socialism, where we have a situation in Britain where 50% of male Muslims and 75% of female Muslims have never worked and live of the work of others, who are effectively wage slaves to those living off their largesse."



In the South African situation you now have the most imbalanced social security system in the world with something like 12 million (out of 45m) people drawing benefits off a tax base of little over 5m. It cannot be sustained and must eventually implode.
Trouble is the ANC does not have the capability to see it.



15 "Clearly, these very different groups, as James points out, should not be "suddenly forced to share a country."
"Fair enough, except no one's forcing them to do anything. Suddenly, or otherwise.’

In South Africa all races were forced to co-exist in 1910 and again in 1994 



16 "The only just solution is for whites to have their own country and to receive 100% of the taxes they pay. The same for blacks. Separation. No aid, no moving of wealth. Just separation." 

“What about aid for unemployed Whites?”

The only reason whites need aid is because the AA and BEE laws bar them from the job market. On top of this the govt refuses them any support because they were “previously advantaged” they are wholly dependent on white run and funded charities for support

“What happens if someone needs to trade between one of these new countries or another?
Will they still not be allowed to live in that country?”

This is happening in the UK right now. Different ethnic groups automatically congregate in their own neighbourhoods. there is no need for laws to regulate it. PM Margaret Thatcher called it “Freedom of Association.” Muhammed Ali advocates exactly the same thing in his interview with Parkinson.
It is only the liberals who seem to have a problem with this reality.
To quote Nick Griffin (paraphrase)
“From their white enclave in Hampstead they advocate that integration, multi culturism and diversity are enriching experiences but they do not engage in this lifestyle themselves”


17 “I'm sorry, I just see a number of problems with this, and while it could sound like a workable solution to, say, one of the Primary school children I teach, I don't think it's at all workable in the real world.”

How about letting us in on the secret and reveal your workable solution - in the real world?

James Mathurin said...

"You agree with the idea of a separate association based on race within the greater whole - right? "

Only in situations when it is absolutely necessary. I think any time such an organisation is needed, it shows that there has been some massive failure on the part of the greater whole.

Also, in the case of the BPA, they are members who have volunteered to be part of an organisation. There is no way you can compare that to South Africa, or its citizens.

"In SA for prior to 1994 for example you had separate hospitals for blacks and whites delivering the same quality of health care."

Funny. The same quality of healthcare? Even though the per capita funding for Blacks was a fraction of that of whites? If you can provide identical health coverage in those circumstances, you need to export that technique to the rest of the world.

"It also made a lot of sense because the segregated hospitals were located in the appropriate residential areas."

Areas which were imposed upon the population, so I don't really see your point there. The blacks would still have had to leave their residential areas to go to a high-quality hospital and - oh wait - they wouldn't be allowed in there, unless it was to clean the floors, and even then, only with a special permit.

"Incidentally there were many white doctors working in the black hospitals...Later, as apartheid started collapsing you had coloured and black nurses working in the white hospitals. "

Great, I am glad that some people rose above the inhumane level the government was happy with.

"Now how does [the Bantustans] differ with Scotland, Wales, England and N Ireland within the UK"

It doesn't really. If Britain were set up like that now, we would be receiving the same criticisms. Like I said, if 20th Century Apartheid SA was on a par with 18th Century politics, that's pretty backward.

I wasn't referring to the specific riot you are, but we had riots here in London earlier this year - no one was shot. 1 man was killed, and no shots were fired.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 1

1 "The mess you see there today is a direct consequence of this policy to dismantle apartheid and white minority rule."


“Well, keep telling yourself that. Seriously, you are entitled to your opinion, but you're stating it as fact here.

Which is exactly what it is



2 "Remember, nowhere on the planet have black people created a country to compare with SA."
“Considering the conditions that were necessary to maintain that, I don't think that's a bad thing. Founding a society on a basis of inequality is always going to end badly.”

Swerve. I am referring to technical competence and sound administration.
Face up to this reality and try to avoid your racial spin default position for once

3 "Now here they are catapulted into managing a first world industrial capitalist democratic economy."

‘You really think South Africa was First World? I know for a fact it was.
I was part of the process that built it

Considering Australia only just got its classification as First World this year, I don't think you can argue that South Africa was ahead of it.

It seems to me that you have not travelled much.

Under white government SA was ahead of OZ. Under black Govt it has regressed.

“It is time for Julius Malema  to admit culpability in keeping leaders in power who are dragging this fine nation to the bottom of international management, development and mortality indexes.

The latter is the measure of civilization while we sport a lower life expectancy than Uganda.

The 2010 Global Competiveness Report by the World Economic Forum rated the new, fair and Democratic South Africa such:

• Quality of the education system – 130th out of 139
• Quality of primary education – 125th out of 139
• Quality of math and science education - 137th out of 139
• HIV prevalence - 136th out of 139
• Life expectancy – 127th out of 139
• Infant mortality – 109th out of 139
• Tuberculosis incidence - 138th out of 139
• Business impact of HIV/AIDS - 138th out of 139

All post 1994

4 “What exactly makes that blog 'the real deal on Apartheid?”

Which blog?

“I flicked through it, and saw a few comments about the myth of Black intellectual inferiority. A couple of comments on different subjects appeared more connected to reality, but it doesn't strike me as being consistent.”

Refer me to a source that supports your counterpoint view
..... continued / P2

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 2

5 "Read the Pandora’s Box series of 30 articles."

“No, I've got better things to do than trudge through those 30 articles. Copy and paste, or link to the bits that you believe are significant and I will be happy to respond.”
The whole series is significant.
However I doubt if it will help enlighten you.
You are seriously conditioned into your distorted liberal ignorance and will just have to live the rest of your life in this darkness

6 I certainly found this article interesting on the genocidewatch site.
Still, no matter how bad the ANC and their supporters might be (and that case certainly shows them in a bad light), it still doesn't retroactively make Apartheid any better.

320,000 killings on the ANC watch of 16 years v 7,000 deaths in 42 years under the NP?

‘Crime Against Humanity’ Apartheid South Africa:  1963 – 1994: 75 Deaths in 31 Years = 2.4 Deaths per year

Throughout the entire apartheid-era up to 75 people died in police-custody between 1963 and 1994.
 
‘Rainbow Democracy’ South Africa: 
Jan – Nov 2010: 566 Deaths in 11 months = 617.4 Deaths per year 

Deaths in Police custody increase 25,725% in ANC’s ‘TRC Rainbow Democracy’

Using the above indicies as a bench mark I would say that you are wrong

7 "This was a metaphor to describe the level of capability and education between the settlers and the locals.
"
Capability? Black people can put a cross on paper. They can choose candidates. This is not some special, transcendental quality of White people.

Check the ratings again in point No3

Put it another way. Mugabe has turned his people into a nation of millionaires yet most of them can’t afford to buy a loaf of bread.

I have white friends in SA who are spending their retirement organising and running food convoys into Zimbabwe.

Peculiarly the west does not consider what is going on in Zimbabwe as oppression despite that fact that an estimated 3 to 6 million are illegal immigrants in South Africa.

Why South Africa you may ask? Because it is the last remaining decent economy in Africa where they might be able to survive

8 “Education, certainly was a problem. Not surprising, considering the terrible underfunding of native infrastructure and education I pointed out earlier.”

And why was it the responsibility of the white man to educate the black man?
Japan, China and Europe were all capable of educating their own.
Why not Africa?



9 "This has been proven many times by the track records of African countries once they gained independence from their colonial rulers. "

“Again, that is your interpretation. I see it more as the legacy of colonialism, as we are discussing here.”

If this is a genuine manifestation of the level of your education and wisdom I thank God that none of my children come under your influence in your classroom.

Do yourself a favour and pick any country you like in Africa.
Go and work there for a year and test your opinions and theories at the coal face.

James Mathurin said...

"Bearing in mind that the policy was not to interfere with black tribal life Read: Interfere with the traditional way of life of The Travellers. "

While it is difficult to enforce because of their mobility, Travellers are still expected to obey and be held to no greater or lesser degree of the law of the land.

With the hospital stuff, do you have any evidence for that? All the anecdotal evidence you are supplying still doesn't demonstrate an equal level of healthcare provision - you just say it was equal and leave it at that. I find it interesting that the voluntary / charity parts of healthcare were integrated, and then the segregation came in at the government point.

You keep talking about the Indian reservations, as if they were a success, or even a good idea. Maybe you should look at them a bit more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation#Life_and_culture

Thanks for the responses.

James Mathurin said...

"There always was a democratic system. In the white mans world we followed the Westminster model. "

No. If everyone governed does not get a say in elections, it is not a democratic system. It is a dictatorship with an elected figurehead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."

I agree that Mugabe has only allowed even a tiny degree of democracy in Zimbabwe after extreme pressure from the international community, and his own people, and if the election went against the ANC and Zuma refused to acknowledge it, I would be lining up with lots of other people in the West to campaign against him. Hopefully, when the ANC get voted out eventually, he'll just end up looking stupid for saying that.

The Nigeria executions look disgusting, and have been condemned by Amnesty International. I hope it does lead to more outcry.

James Mathurin said...

"Except for the fact that it made some people back in the UK very rich and in many ways improved the quality of life for the masses in the home country"

That's the typical colonialist behaviour I was talking about. Colonialism was about enriching the 'home countries', at the expense of the colonised countries. You even mention working class people emigrating to those countries to improve their lives - nothing wrong with that, but it's held up as this awful, society-destroying evil when it's done by working class non-whites to majority white countries.

As for the employment opportunities it opened up for the natives, that is something that was bound to happen if White people shared the land, whether in a colonialist manner, or a more civilised co-operative manner. That a lucky few made it in those professions does not mean that there was a fair and equal opportunity to those jobs, or the resources and infrastructure to get into them for all the citizens of South Africa.

"“Abducting mixed-race children,” There were no mixed race children in Australia until the British settlers arrived and started sleeping with the locals "

Yes, and at a certain point, those mixed-race children or their descendants, being raised by their aboriginal families were abducted by the government, leading to the 'Stolen Generation'.

"Are you sure? I recall a recent TV documentary stating that all mankind was descendant from black Africans and how they migrated across the planet when the various land bridges existed"

Yes, all humans are descended from Africans. You were using "Blacks" in a confusing way when referring to the aboriginals, as they are descended from people who moved into what became Europe, the Middle East, and on to Asia, losing their dark skin colour, and then carried on migrating down to Australia, gaining a dark skin colour again, due to the Africa-like environment. They are genetically less similar to 'Black' Africans than they are to Eastern Asians like Koreans and Japanese.

"If you can explain the creation of Northern Ireland to me then this point is covered. "

Colonialism and exploitation, with the native population made second-class citizens, leading to violence and recriminations that continue centuries later. Point covered?

I looked into what you were saying about the Transkei. I'm curious - it said that most of the decent employment was through their people working in South African mines. So, the land once good, now was soil-eroded, and lacked it's own mineral resources for mining? Maybe this is an exception, but were any of the Bantustans on territory where the coal, gold, platinum, paladium and chromium which drove SA's economy ould be mined?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_industry_of_South_Africa

"You talk in riddles. The settlers settled on vacant land. At most there were about 1 to 2 million blacks spread over an area the size of western Europe. There was space for whites to settle in-between them on unoccupied land
"

Yes, but then they took ontrol and dictated to all of that land. That is incompatible with "leaving the locals alone."

James Mathurin said...

"And as you say - “it was a benevolent dictatorship”"

See, this is where me and you simply come from radically different moral perspectives. A benevolent dictatorship is not significantly more moral to an oppressive dictatorship, in my opinion. Either people are free, or they are dictated to, and Apartheid can only exist in a dictatorial system, so it is, in my eyes, automatically immoral.

I know this is just my opinion, but it is an opinion shared by a great many people, and a great many great people (many of them White). Maybe this is simply the point where we have to agree or disagree.

"They may speak dialects of English and wear western apparel but they are NOT westerners. It is as simple as that. "

They speak English, at least as much as White Americans do, and they are part of Western society. They are Western.

"Check out the links I have given you on Detroit, New Orleans, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the death of Johannesburg and then refer me to similar behaviour and destruction by white westerners living amongst Africans anywhere in Africa and the developed world for that matter."

What particular behaviour? Civil War? Floods? Violent crime? Police and state brutality? I just want to be clear, because that could be a pretty significant list.

"Well this is exactly what the British did in 1910 when they created the Union of South Africa"

So, we've both been arguing the same point from the beginning?

Yeah, sounds like we're starting to agree.

James Mathurin said...

[Harsher laws and excessive control of Black South Africans' lives]
"Name them and provide the detail

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid#Petty_apartheid

"Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated as "white South Africa" without a permit...
Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones. Trains, hospitals and ambulances were segregated.[54] Because of the smaller numbers of white patients and the fact that white doctors preferred to work in white hospitals, conditions in white hospitals were much better than those in often overcrowded black hospitals.[55] Blacks were excluded from living or working in white areas, unless they had a pass—nicknamed the dompas ("dumb pass" in Afrikaans). Only blacks with "Section 10" rights (those who had migrated to the cities before World War II) were excluded from this provision. A pass was issued only to a black person with approved work. Spouses and children had to be left behind in black homelands. A pass was issued for one magisterial district (usually one town) confining the holder to that area only. Being without a valid pass made a person subject to arrest and trial for being an illegal migrant. This was often followed by deportation to the person's homeland and prosecution of the employer (for employing an illegal migrant). Police vans patrolled the white areas to round up illegal blacks found there without passes. Black people were not allowed to employ white people in white South Africa...
Blacks were not allowed to buy hard liquor. They were able only to buy state-produced poor quality beer (although this was relaxed later). Public beaches were racially segregated. Public swimming pools, some pedestrian bridges, drive-in cinema parking spaces, graveyards, parks, and public toilets were segregated. Cinemas and theatres in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks. There were practically no cinemas in black areas. Most restaurants and hotels in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks except as staff. Black Africans were prohibited from attending white churches under the Churches Native Laws Amendment Act of 1957...
Blacks could never acquire land in white areas. In the homelands, much of the land belonged to a 'tribe', where the local chieftain would decide how the land had to be utilised. This resulted in white people owning almost all the industrial and agricultural lands and much of the prized residential land. Most blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship when the "homelands" became "independent". Thus, they were no longer able to apply for South African passports. Eligibility requirements for a passport had been difficult for blacks to meet, the government contending that a passport was a privilege, not a right. As such, the government did not grant many passports to blacks.
"

I was wondering after my last few posts - Would you be willing to accept that Apartheid was a bad idea if the 'credit' for it, rather than the Voortrekkers and the Afrikaaners? Because I have no issue with that.

Celtic Warrior said...

James, you keep referring to historical events that are now gone. Human societies evolve, and hopefully improve. The world has now moved on and so should we.

The Greeks and Romans, from whom we have harvested concepts such as democracy and most of our law, would not, if judged by the standards of today be considered benign or altruistic. In fact by today’s standards we would judge their conduct to have been cruel and inhuman. This does not detract from the great legacy they have bequeathed us and from which we have taken the good and dumped the bad.

Can I suggest you do the same, otherwise you should consider if Europe is really where you wish to be.

There is a desperate need for trained people, especially educators, to fill training and management roles throughout Africa. The aid agencies, are oblidged to recruit mostly white Europeans to fulfill the demand, would be ecstatic if more of their aid operatives were people of colour. At the same time you would experience the real Africa at first hand and not have to depend on second and third hand reports, not always totally correct, as you seem to be doing at present.

I assure you that such a vocation is a really worthwhile endeavor and one gains a great sense of achievement from doing so. I can also assure you, as an old Africa hand, that your skills would be of much greater benefit to poor Africans who are crying out for education, than they are in the Britain of today, where your mixed race background is possibly not always appreciated. In other words don’t leave the future of Africa in the hands of lily white Europeans.

So James come and join us here in Africa and do something positive for the poor African children crying out desperately for your help, instead of engaging in futile argument on a right wing nationalist blog, who don’t accept you as a Briton.

Celtic Warrior said...

The following statement is palpably untrue;

"Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones".

They both stopped at the same bus stops.

Celtic Warrior said...

Again the following statement is untrue.

"Police vans patrolled the white areas to round up illegal blacks".

No they didn't, they patrolled to prevent crime, in which they were very successful.

But no more, as since 1994 this does not happen and which is the cause of South Africa becoming a contender for the title of "crime capital of the world".

Celtic Warrior said...

Again the following statement is untrue.

"They were able only to buy state-produced poor quality beer"

Like the English, Irish, Germans and Dutch brew different types of beer to suit their individual national tastes, so is beer produced in accordance with traditional African methods for African tastes. It still is. The fact that the it was of poor quality was by virtue of the poor quality of the traditional recipe and crude methods of brewing.

Again I invite James to come and work here in Africa and experience these things for himself. He may even like it.

Celtic Warrior said...

The following statement is in accordance with traditional African norms and has been practiced since prehistoric times and definetly not imposed by Europeans.

"In the homelands, much of the land belonged to a 'tribe', where the local chieftain would decide how the land had to be utilised".

One should take great care with quotations from Wikipedia, as it is not considered authoritive. The University of South Africa does not normally accept such references.

Celtic Warrior said...

The following statement needs to be placed in context. It’s a little like saying that the Irish were “stripped” of their UK citizenship when they won home rule and subsequence “independence”.

"Most blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship when the "homelands" became "independent".

The policy of the independent homelands was an attempt to shield the technologically challenged Africans from the technologically capable Europeans. If left to the free market there would have been only one winner and I don't need to tell who that would be.

These homelands were viewed by the Government of the day as being little different from the homelands of the Swazis of Swaziland, the Sothos of Lesotho and the Tswanas of Botswana. All named after the majority tribe in those areas, as had been done in Europe hundreds/ thousands of years ago.

Therefore, in the same way as those nations were led to independence with their own traditions, cultures and languages by the British, so were the homeland to be treated in similar manner. The ability of a country to issue its own passport is surely a significant symbol of that independence. I know these things were rapturously received by the Irish when it eventually won it right to rule itself.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said.

"Would you be willing to accept that Apartheid was a bad idea"

I believe that most educated people will agree with that. That is also the problem of democracy. Originally the majority of National Party supporters were poor working class Afrikaans speakers with a less than adequate education. This was due mainly to the domination of South African English speakers in commerce and technology. This domination was lost in 1948 when the National Party came to power in a democratic election, by promising the Afrikaner his place in the sun. The Afrikaner eventually gained control of the country and their dominance enabled them to climb out of the poverty trap they had been in. Eventually this policy succeeded so well, that the Afrikaner became well educated and wealthy like their English speaking fellow countrymen. This in turn led the Afrikaner to question the practices of apartheid and eventually see its grievous faults and to finally dump it.

If one is to looks closely at the policies of the present ANC government, one will note that many of the Apartheid policies, less the most obvious discrimination (petty apartheid), have been incorporated into SA law for the same reasons and that is, the upliftment of the African.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated as "white South Africa" without a permit..."

The foregoing statement, as it is posed, is very misleading and is also a dangerous statement, as it fails to mention that no business, white or black can be operated in South Africa without a permit or license.

And also it should be added that whites were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated "black".

It would help and save us all a lot of time if we were to get our stories correct before submitting them. Much of what is being said is correct but whose truth is being devalued by the misleading falsehoods contained in the same sentance or paragraph.

James Mathurin said...

"James, you keep referring to historical events that are now gone."

Well, this was an article about history, and its effect on the current day. I figure I can get away with it here. After all, those that forget the past...

I agree with a lot of what you go on to say, and I do find Europe to be the place where you are best able to leave the past behind and move on.

The aid idea is interesting, and definitely one for me to consider in the future, although it does not exactly fit in with my plans to start a family. Still, always something to keep in mind...

"your skills would be of much greater benefit to poor Africans who are crying out for education, than they are in the Britain of today, where your mixed race background is possibly not always appreciated."

I have really had no problems with it, from children or colleagues, whether White, Black or other. I'm used to children asking me where I'm from, but they always happilly accept the answer "London".

Reminds me of an interesting observation. Here in Britain, I am used to people viewing me as Black, because of my mixed-race, and treating me as such. When I became friends with a Rwandan, the first time I referred to myself as 'Black', she burst out laughing in surprise, and confusion, because she saw me as 'White'.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“but it's held up as this awful, society-destroying evil when it's done by working class non-whites to majority white countries”.

Yes, it is an “awful society–destroying evil”. It destroys Africa, more than it destroys the west. It does this by depriving Africa of its best and brightest, who will have been trained and educated at the expense of the country that can least afford it. Yes, most definitely an “awful society–destroying evil”.

At one time it was reported that there were more Malawian doctors in Birmingham than there were in the whole of Malawi.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"The aid idea is interesting, and definitely one for me to consider in the future, although it does not exactly fit in with my plans to start a family."

When the challenge came for white Europeans to go to Africa, whether it be for trade or missionary reasons, our ancestors did not hesitate to do so.

Now is your chance to do for good and altruistic reasons what they did and not hide behind excuses of marriage and family. Many Europeans did it with their wives and children and created a highly productive and civilized society where none had previously existed. They did so out of a completely undeveloped area of the world, which now supports 50 million people, of which less than 5 million are white.

The western interior of South Africa, the Karoo, is semi desert with little rainfall, an area which was only ever occupied by the San nomadic hunter gathers and was by-passed by the Bantu (Africans) due to it being impossible for them to survive on. European farmers have brought productivity and wealth to this district. So come James and do the same.

So James, do you have any other excuses to offer to excuse your failure to take up the cudgel on behalf of the poor starving African masses. The days of expecting white Europeans to provide the necessary aid, both money and skills, to Africa, must surely come to an end. And who better to take our place but those of African descent who have benefitted from a European education and training.

James Mathurin said...

I see no reason to question most of the disagreements you made, but I do think this was a weak point:

"Like the English, Irish, Germans and Dutch brew different types of beer to suit their individual national tastes, so is beer produced in accordance with traditional African methods for African tastes"

Regardless of the quality of the beer, the main point there was that they were forbidden from buying any other liquor. At least if you're a Brit, German, Irishman, etc who doesn't like your own traditional beer, it's still legal for you to buy something else.

"One should take great care with quotations from Wikipedia, as it is not considered authoritive. The University of South Africa does not normally accept such references. "

Oh, I know, but it's normally a good place to start, and most times you get a link to the original source of the statement.

"The policy of the independent homelands was an attempt to shield the technologically challenged Africans from the technologically capable Europeans."

I have heard plenty of such claims about the intent, and I do agree it was the stated intent. I simply find it pretty insincere and hard to believe, and think it was just good PR for being able to exploit the natives as cheap labour, while simultaneously making their poor standards of healthcare, education etc 'not our problem'.

"The ability of a country to issue its own passport is surely a significant symbol of that independence. I know these things were rapturously received by the Irish when it eventually won it right to rule itself. "

Again, fair enough, but I am sceptical about the independence of the Bantustans. From what I have read, their leaders were chosen and bolstered by SA, and hence all did their bidding. The situation seems more comparable to Palestine / Israel than Britain / ROI.

James Mathurin said...

"This domination was lost in 1948 when the National Party came to power in a democratic election, by promising the Afrikaner his place in the sun."

When you say 'democratic election', do you mean that every SA citizen was allowed to vote? That the Black South Africans voted for the National Party?

"If one is to looks closely at the policies of the present ANC government, one will note that many of the Apartheid policies, less the most obvious discrimination (petty apartheid), have been incorporated into SA law for the same reasons and that is, the upliftment of the African. "

I am starting to get that impression, and if it is an accurate one, I think they're just as destined to fail as the Apartheid regime.

The clarifications on the permit system are useful, and exactly the kind of information I hope to get through these discussions.

"Yes, it is an “awful society–destroying evil”. It destroys Africa, more than it destroys the west. It does this by depriving Africa of its best and brightest, who will have been trained and educated at the expense of the country that can least afford it. Yes, most definitely an “awful society–destroying evil”. "

Again, a far more thoughtful argument against immigration than most bandied about on here. I still think that, long term, if Africa's best and brightest are able to experience the good and bad of a First World system, and perhaps take that experience home one day, it could well be for the best in the long term, for the country they visit and their homeland.

But, as I said, you make an interesting point.

"Now is your chance to do for good and altruistic reasons what they did and not hide behind excuses of marriage and family."

It is not an excuse, and may in fact be something that could help me with that in the future (for reasons I prefer not to go into on the board). But, for at least the next year or so, it definitely is not an option. That said, I seriously will bear it in mind when my situation changes.

"So James, do you have any other excuses to offer to excuse your failure to take up the cudgel on behalf of the poor starving African masses."

No excuses, but reasons, which I am happy to discuss if you contact me directly, and not on here.

"The days of expecting white Europeans to provide the necessary aid, both money and skills, to Africa, must surely come to an end."

I'm less concerned with the background of those providing care, so much as I am with those in a position to help supporting those who need it.

Laager said...

@ James M - May 22 - PART 1

1
"Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated as "white South Africa" without a permit...

Correct

They were fully entitled to do whatever they liked in areas designated "black SA" i.e. the homelands and their residential areas “the townships” Similarly whites were not allowed to establish businesses in black areas.

Now that these laws no longer exist blacks have moved into the CBDs of most cities and whites have moved out. So now blacks do business with blacks in previously white areas and they are degenerating into shitholes just like Detroit and Haiti.

See blogs:
Death of Johannesburg
and
Death of Durban

White business areas are still on a par with Europe but will ultimately succumb to the same fate of African slash and burn principles and practices that prevail

2
Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones.

Long, long, ago - up to the 1960s.
The main reason where bus stops were segregated ( I refer to Natal where I grew up. I’m not up to speed with the rest of the country) was that they serviced different needs - i.e. it was not necessary for whites to travel to black areas and vice versa.

As the population became wealthier most whites owned cars and rarely used busses. Where there were previously duplicated bus services on the same routes they consolidated and blacks and whites travelled on the same busses - whites up front, blacks at the back.

By the 1970s this no longer applied and people sat anywhere. Today, in non-racial,“free” and democratic SA, for minority whites to travel on busses and some trains it is an open invitation to a violent mugging and possible murder.
Whites simply do not do it if they value their health

3
Trains, hospitals and ambulances were segregated

Correct
Because of the smaller numbers of white patients and the fact that white doctors preferred to work in white hospitals, conditions in white hospitals were much better than those in often overcrowded black hospitals

Wrong
Black hospitals were overcrowded because blacks were breeding at a rate faster than the minority white tax base could provide facilities for them.
I spent 10 years of my life procuring new hospitals and schools for black people on a par with what white people had.
Black hospitals were staffed with white doctors for the simple reason that there were not enough black doctors.
The Govt built a university - acronym MEDUNSA - specifically for the training of black doctors to remedy this problem. See Pandoras Box for all the details

..... continued /P2

Laager said...

@ James M - May 22 - PART 2

4 Blacks were excluded from living [or working] in white areas, unless they had a pass—nicknamed the dompas ("dumb pass" in Afrikaans).

Correct
The pass was actually a passport created by the British c 1806+.
The intent of the document was to manage the migration of blacks from the rural areas, where they lived a traditional subsistence farming life, into the villages and towns and eventually cities.
Remember, the settlers were always a minority and their economies could simply not create jobs for everyone.
Unemployed blacks in the cities had a far lower quality of life than if they remained in the homelands in their family units.

Paradoxically, traditionally most white households employed a black maid who lived - for free - on the premises, so blacks actually did live in white areas.
In addition to free lodging their employment package normally included free food, uniforms and their employers took care of their health care - visits to the Dr.
Come holidays employers normally paid their travel costs to and from their tribal homelands.

Work (i.e. that paid a wage) that was available was in the white areas so that statement is incorrect.
Blacks commuted into the white areas where the jobs were and returned to their residential areas - i.e the townships, built for them by the minority white taxpayers to provide decent urban accommodation for them.

The pass system was no different really to the illegal immigration challenges that Europe is now facing with Africans prepared to cross the Sahara and the Mediterranean for a perceived better life in Europe.
In Africa they have every God given resource they need in their own countries to create a decent standard of living and quality of life.
The problem is that they are incapable of doing so and opt for the easier parasitical lifestyle as in Detroit and Haiti.
Once they have extracted everything they can from an area they move on. Classic African “slash and burn”
See the link I gave you on Detroit.

5 Only blacks with "Section 10" rights (those who had migrated to the cities before World War II) were excluded from this provision. A pass was issued only to a black person with approved work. Spouses and children had to be left behind in black homelands. A pass was issued for one magisterial district (usually one town) confining the holder to that area only. Being without a valid pass made a person subject to arrest and trial for being an illegal migrant. This was often followed by deportation to the person's homeland and prosecution of the employer (for employing an illegal migrant). Police vans patrolled the white areas to round up illegal blacks found there without passes. Black people were not allowed to employ white people in white South Africa...

All addressed in Point 3

..... continued/P3

Laager said...

@ James M - May 22 - PART 3

6 Blacks were not allowed to buy hard liquor.

That law changed in about 1960.

As a student in the 70s I had a part time job as a cashier in a “bottle store” [off licence] serving black customers. Blacks and white customers were segregated. I was astonished at the size of the orders that were being placed until I realised we were supplying the shebeens in the townships with stock

7 They were able only to buy state-produced poor quality beer (although this was relaxed later).
“Poor quality beer” was actually Magewu - traditional African sorghum beer brewed on a commercial scale and retailed at about 1/2 the price [or less] of western type beer.
This was available to blacks in white areas in beer halls which white people did not frequent. Prior to the commercial brewing of Magewu most black beer was home brewed.
When it came to spirits the home brewed concoctions came with some serious health hazards.

..... continued / P4

Laager said...

@ James M - May 18 - PART 4

8 Public beaches were racially segregated. Public swimming pools, some pedestrian bridges, drive-in cinema parking spaces, graveyards, parks, and public toilets were segregated.

Correct

For the record, black people generally do not swim. Even today - 20 years after apartheid was scrapped you will see 1000s of blacks on the beaches but very few in the water. How many black swimmers and divers do you see competing at the Olympic Games - especially from African countries that never had apartheid?

Cinemas and theatres in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks.

Wrong.

In the village that I grew up in the local village hall was the cinema over weekends
Seating inside was segregated. The business was operated by an Asian in a supposedly white area.
I used to have my haircut by an Asian barber in the “black” side of town as he was the only barber shop in the village

There were practically no cinemas in black areas.
Blacks were quite at liberty to operate a cinema in their own areas if they chose to do so. The reason that they did not was language. All films were in English - either British or American (remember that there were 9 different black languages, and most blacks had a rudimentary command of English and/or Afrikaans) - about subjects light years away from African tribal life. They would just not relate to it, in the same way that I have zero interest in East Enders, Coronation Street and The Archers

Most restaurants and hotels in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks except as staff.
This law was scrapped in the late 60s/early 70s

Black Africans were prohibited from attending white churches under the Churches Native Laws Amendment Act of 1957...
If this law existed the churches I attended simply ignored it and the police turned a blind eye to it. Conversely, where I grew up there were a number of RC and Methodist mission stations in the district.
The ministers and teaching staff were mainly white and dedicated their entire lives to the development and upliftment of blacks.
Church services here were totally integrated

..... continued / P5

Laager said...

@ James M - May 22 - PART 5

9 Blacks could never acquire land in white areas.
Whites could never acquire land in black areas either.

In the homelands, much of the land belonged to a 'tribe', where the local chieftain would decide how the land had to be utilised.

Correct.

Blacks do not have a system of private land ownership. That is a western concept.
African land is collectively occupied by a tribe and its use is administered by the chief. This is why there was no “poverty” in black tribal areas.
Each family had space to build a hut, grow their crops and graze their cattle. It was white liberals who applied their materialistic standards and values to black tribal life and decided that they were poor and impoverished.

This resulted in white people owning almost all the industrial, agricultural lands and much of the prized residential land.

Wrong.

The land owned by whites was a fraction of the land owned and occupied by blacks.
You can check it out on Google Earth.
The old chestnut - “prized residential land.” The difference is what whites do with the land they have.
See it for yourself on Google Earth. Two good examples:
Soweto and Houghton in Johannesburg
and the white farming area of Kokstad adjacent to the Transkei.
Same land, same sunshine , same rainfall separated by a fence.
Explain the difference to me and why this is so.

Other white western concepts that did not exist in black societies were:
Christianity Democracy Taxes to be used for tribal upliftment (Chiefs demanded personal tribute)
The Rule of Law - African society is predicated on the strong man is boss
Read Shaka Zulu

..... continued P6

Laager said...

@ James M - May 22 - PART 6

10 Most blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship when the "homelands" became "independent".

It was the British that turned the 9 distinct and separate black tribes/nations that were living apart from one another into “South Africans” in 1910. In other words they created a Yugoslavia - and how long did Yugoslavia last before it disintegrated through warfare? The National Party (1948) restored their sovereignty to the Zulus, Xhosas, Tswanas etc.(no different to England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) after they had been conquered by the British between 1806 and 1910 The United Nations called this “A Crime Against Humanity”
By the way the British also conquered the Afrikaners in order to gain control of the diamond and gold deposits

Thus, they were no longer able to apply for South African passports.

Correct.

They were now able to apply for passports of their own sovereign nation.
For example; The Transkei is as big as Switzerland, Lesotho and Swaziland. These two countries are independent nations and recognised as such. Independence was not forced on the homelands. When they felt they were ready - after having been prepared for this event through investment and training by the South African Govt - they were free to choose this route at any time.
Only 3 of the 9 did so.

Eligibility requirements for a passport had been difficult for blacks to meet, the government contending that a passport was a privilege, not a right. As such, the government did not grant many passports to blacks......

I do not know enough detail on this issue to make a fully valid comment.

However, what I do know is that most blacks were (western) poor and barely moved more than 20 miles beyond their villages. There was not much demand for passports from them for international travel.

Notice how the Wikipedia article is written from a totally white western perspective and set of values. No understanding of local customs is acknowledged and everything done by the whites is presented as intrinsically evil because it does not conform to western values, norms and mores. This is classic distorted left wing liberal reporting.

To read the truth and find the balance read the Pandora’s Box series of articles.

The truth of the matter is that apartheid grew out of the British class system and was a legislated version of it.

At the end of the day it was an extremely benevolent system where the settlers recognised the differences between the 1st world and the 3rd world, did not force their culture onto the locals, left them alone to continue with their traditional way of life in their original territories and gradually introduced and paid for institutions that enabled blacks to be assimilated into western ways at their own pace.

If you can propose a better system I would like you to explain it to us.

Laager said...

@ James

I hope that Celtic Warrior and I have enabled you to get a first hand insight into South Africa.

I have to agree with CW criticism of your reasons for not responding to his suggestion to work a contract in SA for a few years. I thought you would have jumped at the opportunity to spend some time in the clean air and open spaces

There is also the bonus that apartheid no longer exists Well at least not white on black, but black on white is alive and thriving

Black majority rule is the order of the day which I'm sure you will enjoy - particularly the maintenance of the infrastructure.
You will be able toe experience "the wealth of talent within the ANC" as Nelson Mandela described it in a UK TV interview, first hand now that they have had 16 years of experience.

You will be able to make your contribution teaching black children in the new improved educational system and remedy the oppression and legacy of apartheid

You will be able to swim on desegregated beaches.
Durban's North Beach is a must on December 16th.
This is a public holiday called The Day of Reconcilliation. Black people have turned it into a real festival by flocking to the beaches.

You will be able to shop in the desegregated malls of Soweto, the Johannesburg CBD and Sandton, plus eat in desegregated restaurants - Guguletu in Cape Town is the place to go to - and stay in desegregated hotels and B&Bs around the country.
Try Kwa-Mashu and Umhlanga in KZN

In closing I will leave you with some quotes from that famous human rights fighter Mahatma Ghandi who spent his early formative years in South Africa:

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ CWMG, Vol. II, p. 74

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” He also said, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” ~ CWMG, Vol. VIII, pp. 135-136

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 150

REF:
http://www.gandhism.net/hisownwords.php

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Regardless of the quality of the beer, the main point there was that they were forbidden from buying any other liquor".

Then you should just say that James, and not use the fact that Bantu beer is of inferior quality because of African's inferior methods and smear the European with it.

It's of inferior quality like everything else made in Africa. It just is, so accept it as I do.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Again, fair enough, but I am sceptical about the independence of the Bantustans. From what I have read, their leaders were chosen and bolstered by SA, and hence all did their bidding".

Tell that to Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the leader of the Inkata Freedom Party and a member of the Zulu Royal house and therefore a man of substance in African tradition. He will laugh at you. It was his people more than most that opposed the Voortrekkers and the British.

This is getting a little boring James as you seem to know little about South Africa, its history or its present, its peoples or its politics. Your sources seem to be lacking many relevant facts or else you are ignoring them. Understandable I suppose, when you wish to discuss these matters with those who know as little as you do. Can I suggest that should you wish to continue debating this matter on here that you do some serious study on it. I can recommend a list of books recommended by University of South Africa for students studying South African history if you wish.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"But were the Africans responsible for the Triangular trade which took slavery to unprecedented levels? Were they responsible for the millions of deaths on the Middle Passage voyage?"

Yes they were James, as without them no Africans would have been captured in the first place. If no slaves were available for the slave traders to buy there would have been no slave trade.

James you are talking about events that occurred hundreds of years ago. The history of civilisation tells us that slavery was a perfectly normal practice in times gone by. Read the bible. You are making judgement calls on historical events based on the standards of our civilisation practiced at this time. No doubt we are currently doing something at this point in time, which society finds totally acceptable, but maybe sometime in the future that same practice will be condemned as totally unacceptable.

Again, visit Africa where you will see practices that are totally acceptable within African society but would not be acceptable in European society. But then who are we to tell them they are wrong. We must leave this to people of African descent to guide them to more civilised ways.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"I think everyone should have pride in who they are, but not at the expense of believing that other people are less deserving of pride, simply because they are from a different group".

Just like some people are superior to others so are groups of people. That is why some people are leaders and CEOs and others are followers and unskilled labourers.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"I simply don't believe White people are somehow 'special'"

You may not wish to believe it but yes they are James. 97% of all significant achievements by human beings over the past 2800 years were concieved, discovered or invented by white people. Just look around the room you are currently sitting in and tell me what things of significance to modern life you see that was not initially discovered or invented by a white people.

James Mathurin said...

"Then you should just say that James, and not use the fact that Bantu beer is of inferior quality because of African's inferior methods and smear the European with it."

Celtic, I posted the point in response to Laager's questioning my claim that Black South African's lived under different, more restrictive laws than their White counterparts. I think if you had read all of the exchange, that would have been clear, and my lack of concern about the relative quality of alcoholic beverages would have been, also.

"Tell that to Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the leader of the Inkata Freedom Party and a member of the Zulu Royal house and therefore a man of substance in African tradition"

...Who was also accused of being an Apartheid colborator, and who opposed the government's Bantustan plans. At least, as far as I can tell. Why, in particular, would he laugh at the suggestion?

Please, do feel free to educate me. I don't come on here thinking I know everything on this subject, but people seem to get very annoyed when I don't accept their word as gospel, and ask for supporting evidence. Hearing from people with first-hand experience is definitely part of the process, and I have taken many of your points on board.

James Mathurin said...

"Yes they were James, as without them no Africans would have been captured in the first place. If no slaves were available for the slave traders to buy there would have been no slave trade. "

Seriously? I already addressed this:

"The Africans weren't going up to European traders, begging them to take their slaves off their hands. They were paid - subcontractors, if you will. They have to bear the responsibility for that choice, but you cannot put the responsibility for the instigation or maintenance of the Atlantic Slave Trade on them."

You've made some really good points in this thread, but this is by far your weakest.

"You are making judgement calls on historical events based on the standards of our civilisation practiced at this time. "

No. I never claimed that slavery originated with the Atlantic slave trade, but it was an unprecedented form of slavery when it was created, and the like hasn't been seen before or since.

"Just like some people are superior to others so are groups of people. That is why some people are leaders and CEOs and others are followers and unskilled labourers. "

Are you honestly arguing that there is something inherently superior about 'leaders and CEOs'? That, if they were swapped at birth with a child from an "inferior" family, they would never the less still become 'Leaders and CEOs', while the 'inferior' child would inevitably fall behind?

If that were true, then for one thing, you should tell Sarah to stop claiming that the 'White Working Class' of this country are in a poor state because of decades of political disenfranchisement, but because they are simply an inferior group, who are destined to fail.

"97% of all significant achievements by human beings over the past 2800 years were concieved, discovered or invented by white people.

I have not suggested otherwise, but I have already discussed on here why that should be, and it is not any inherent difference between White and other ethnicities.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Please, do feel free to educate me. I don't come on here thinking I know everything on this subject, but people seem to get very annoyed when I don't accept their word as gospel,"

They are right to get annoyed. I notice from most of your posts that you are in the habit of mixing fact with fiction, excluding important facts, exaggeration and refusing to accept the true facts concerning South Africa by people who have lived here for many decades and have studied the situation at degree level. It also seems to me that you are only listening to the politically correct fascist left.

The only way for this discussion to progress, is for you to take time out and seriously study some relevant South African history. I suggest that a suitable period would be from the late 60s until the early 90s. This would be the most fruitful because it was during this era that everything about South Africa changed.

I have access to a full set of University of South Africa (Unisa) Study Guides that are issued to students studying for a degree in history. And before you ask, no, they were/are not issued by the Apartheid regime. They are in PDF format and I’ll be only too happy to let you have copies. The Study Guides provide extensive references and lists of recommended books for study.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Who was also accused of being an Apartheid colborator, and who opposed the government's Bantustan plans .... Why, in particular, would he laugh at the suggestion?"

He may have been accused of being a collaborator, but he was not one. Your own statement "and who opposed the government's Bantustan plans" contradicts the accusation.

The fact that he would "laugh at the suggestion" is again answered by your own statement "and who opposed the government's Bantustan plans".

Are we being really serious here James or are you just wasting our time?

Laager said...

@ James

Regarding your comments on the triangular slave trade.
Are you implying that South Africa was somehow part of this process?
A quick glance at you atlas will reveal that West Africa is about 4,000 miles away from South Africa.

The good news is that black "South Africans" were never enslaved. The slave trade was abolished (1807) about 25 years after whites first made contact with blacks along the Fish River c1770. The Voortrekkers only arrived in Natal - after having gone out of their way to avoid the Xhosa - in 1838. By that time all slaves in the Empire had been emancipated.

The thorny issue of the need for cheap manual labour still existed. The british overcame this with their system of indentured labourers. Indians were imported into Natal to provide the labour in the sugar plantations they established. These labourers were locked into 5 year contracts and earned about 10s/month which even in 1860 was little more than slave wages.

The slaves that did exist in the Cape when the British forcibly took it in 1806 had been bought in by the Dutch East Co from west Africa, Angola, Mozambique and Indonesia - probably from Portuguese slave traders.

So whenever you hear a black South African politician ranting on about the lot of black people today being the result of slavery, colonialism and apartheid you know he is lying.

Mandela became a lawyer and Tutu a school teacher and then a cleric as a result of this process.
Hardly oppression is it?

Laager said...

@ CW

"This is getting a little boring James as you seem to know little about South Africa, its history or its present, its peoples or its politics. Your sources seem to be lacking many relevant facts or else you are ignoring them."

I have to agree

"I can recommend a list of books recommended by University of South Africa for students studying South African history if you wish."

James is unlikely to take you up on your offer.
I have provided him with plenty of popular references to blogs and U tube clips to enlighten him He has declined to follow up the offer.
In some cases he expects me to do his research for him.
In others ( Pandoras Box) he is just plain too lazy to do any reading.

I think the real reason is that he will discover that all his left wing liberal prejudices that he has been clinging to all these years will simply been blown right out of the water

There is always a compromise
He and his LWL buddies can have a pity party and lament the fact that they have been mislead for all these years.
Sources that they considered reliable will have been exposed to be biased.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic,

"Are we being really serious here James or are you just wasting our time? "

Well, someone's having their time wasted. ;-)

"He may have been accused of being a collaborator, but he was not one. Your own statement "and who opposed the government's Bantustan plans" contradicts the accusation."

You'd know better than me, but is it not also possible that the Bantustan idea was so unattractive that even someone comfortable with the Apartheid regime was against it?

Possibly not, but what about the leaders of the other Bantustans? Would they have similarlylaughed at it?

James Mathurin said...

"Regarding your comments on the triangular slave trade.
Are you implying that South Africa was somehow part of this process?
"

No, that was never suggested. It was actually brought up by Sarah.

James Mathurin said...

"In some cases he expects me to do his research for him.
In others ( Pandoras Box) he is just plain too lazy to do any reading.
"

No, I just expected you to provide information to back up your claims, not just put a link to a site with 100+ articles and say, "The evidence is in there, somewhere." Now that, my friend, is lazy.

James Mathurin said...

Hey, I hate white people? How did I miss that?

"James doesn't have an argument what he has is hatred of whites whether he chooses to admit to us and himself is another matter."

Rob, I know we're meant to be meeting up soon, but I need to ask now, what is this about? What have I said at any point that shows hatred of White people? I genuinely want to know where you're getting this from?

"He seems to honestly believe that Africans lived in a state grace before the evil white man destroyed their 'advanced' or peaceful civilisation"

No, and I have never said anything to that effect. I did say that the social structures they had were destabilised by colonialism, but that is not the same as painting them as utopias.

"( I think Jimmy is as conflicted as another Half-caste, Barry Obama, on this). "

Are you one of those like Glenn Beck, who thinks he has a 'deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture'?

"His constant reference to the discredited, outdated and agenda ridden Gun's, Germ's and Steel is sad"

I'm really interested - what are the criticisms of GGS? Can you send me a link?

"Jimmy doesn't like evidence preferring propaganda that re-affirms his world view."

Hey, I love evidence - show me some!

"Jimmy is a man who thinks communism's a good idea ... it's just never been carried through properly you can't argue with stupidity/hatred like that.

I just think it's hard to argue with the underlying principles - every person being equal, from each according to his ability to each according to his need, de-centralization of power, all that stuff.

"He like's GGS because it put's us at the mercy of the 'people of colour's' charity"

Charity? Which one? Barnardos? Amnesty? And who does it 'put on the back foot'?

"As I said it's discredited , it's author has agenda which is not to increase our understanding but to constrict it, to make it conform to a world-view that has proved to be destructive and genocidal."

This sounds really interesting. Please, what are you referring to?

"Jimmy like's evolution when he can use it 'de-construct' idea's he doesn't like but when it would undermine the tenets of his particular secular religion"

I don't "like" evolution, I just think it is the explanation for the development of life that is best supported by the evidence. Also, I'm Agnostic, so what "religion" are you referring to?

"all of sudden we've stopped evolving or selection starts 'working' in a different way"

Have I ever claimed that we've stopped evolving?

"Furthermore there were and are African beasts that have been domesticated that Africans never took advantage of including the elephant"

Are we talking about domestication or taming? I had a look, and there seem to be significant differences between the two. For example, one tamed zebra does not show that the species can be domesticated. What are the species and examples you are referring to?

"as well as crop's, vegetable's that kept Africans alive and healthy for millennia, they were never cultivated."

Which crops are you referring to?

"We are different clearly and as Jimmy no doubt think's we should 'celebrate diversity' It's strange that he seems kick so hard against this one obvious fact."

We are certainly different in culture, etc, and I have not kicked against it. We have far more in common than our differences.

Laager said...

@ James

"The evidence is in there, somewhere." Now that, my friend, is lazy.

Wrong!

If you want comprehensive answers you need to do some reading
Sound bytes just don't cut

That means you will need to read the full Pandora's Box series to get all the answers you need .

It's quite simple really - just read the heading of each chapter to find the topic you want answered.

31 articles in all - reading the index will take 1 minute of your time
Are you telling me that you can't manage that?

James Mathurin said...

If I make a claim, or if I am asked to back up something I said, I find the specific information, and provide a link, citation or direct quote.

I am already short of time, and hence will probably take longer to reply to any further comments, (although I will get my email updates, so I won't miss your replies), so I definitely do not have the time to slog through 31 blogs entries. I am not after "soundbites", I am just after specific citations.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Are we talking about domestication or taming? I had a look, and there seem to be significant differences between the two. For example, one tamed zebra does not show that the species can be domesticated. What are the species and examples you are referring to?”

All animals were originally wild; taming suitable ones was the first step towards domestication. Having tamed the initial breeding stock, careful selection would then have taken place over many generations to breed out unsuitable characteristics and breed in the required traits, such as docility, suitability as a provider of food and as draft animals. It still takes place today in the more agriculturally advanced countries.

In African society, cattle played a major part and still does today. The wealth of a person or tribe was/is measured in the numbers of cattle owned. And here it is important to note that it was the quantity that mattered and not the quality.

It is also useful to note that cattle were not considered as a source of meat and only slaughtered to celebrate important events. Otherwise it was seen as a diminution of wealth.

When disease struck the African cattle herds it could result in the breakdown of the social unit with disastrous consequences to the members of the tribe. This problem was ultimately cured with the adoption of European methods of stock management and veterinarian services. One should also say that European cattle farmers gained from using African cattle to improve the disease resistance of their own cattle.

Today in 2011, many African men are expected to purchase their brides from the father with Lobola, which depending on the bride will be so many head of cattle. No I’m not joking, despite the ANC’s adoption of gender equality, women are still seen as the property of men. Many modern African men, who by virtue of their modern professions own no cattle, but will be expected to provide Lobola in kind.

James Mathurin said...

I am familiar with the Lobola thing you mentioned. I very briefly dated an African girl who mentioned that, but she seemed to find it amusing - I think she viewed it as a 'transfer of property' in the same way as Asian cultures have dowries, and Christian cultures have the father 'give away the Bride'.

I was genuinekly interested in what you were saying about the cattle herds. Are they kept purely as currrency, not being used for milk or meat? Are they used, either by Black or White Africans at all as beasts of burden - pulling ploughs, etc?

Laager said...

"the Lobola thing"
Is an African custom which demonstrates to the family of the bride that the prospective husband is a worthy son-in-law. By working for and accumulating the lobola he proves that he is responsible and capable of taking care of his wife and future family.

It also is a mechanism which enables polygamy.
As long as a man can come up with the lobola he is free to take as many wives as he can afford

African cattle are used for milk and the Masai also drink their blood.
Oxen are used for pulling ploughs and land sledges
As recently as 2006 whilst driving through the Transkei i saw a land sledge being used.
This comprised the fork of a tree to form a "Y" on which planks were nailed to create a cargo area.
An ox then dragged this contraption across the earth ripping up the rich top soil which when it rained was transported to the rivers and out into the Indian Ocean, making it the Transkei's biggest export - to no-one. Even after living alongside the white man and all his technological innovations for 230 year blacks have still not copied the wheel from the white man.







I was genuinekly interested in what you were saying about the cattle herds. Are they kept purely as currrency, not being used for milk or meat? Are they used, either by Black or White Africans at all as beasts of burden - pulling ploughs, etc?

Laager said...

@ James

My time is also extremely valuable and I am using up a lot of it in my efforts to help you escape from your darkness.

These references and links to articles, blogs and U Tube clips are as good as you are going to get from me.

I can't spoon feed you any longer.

Do your own work and make sure of the real facts before you start repeating all this left wing liberal nonsense that you have been brainwashed with and try to debate with it.

James Mathurin said...

OK, finally got a chance to reply:
The point on Oxen seems a little confusing. Oxen are not a native species to Africa, are they? As far as I can tell, they originate from the Eurasian continent (from Western Europe, through to India).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox

You say the African cattle are only really used for milk and blood, so would I be right in thinking they are not useful as beasts of burden? After all, surely it would have been easier for the colonialists to have made use of native cattle for agriculture(in terms of trnasport and resistance to disease and parasites), rather than bringing their own?

The bit about 'land sledges' was interesting. I found an interesting paper on it here http://www.atnesa.org/contil/contil-shetto-indigenous.pdf

"Traditional agriculture in the past was compatible with the level of population and ecological environment. Long bush fallow periods were effective in restoring soil fertility for the prevailing level of crop yields and intensity of cropping. Pressure on land has resulted in drastic reduction of the fallow periods and in some countries they have disappeared completely. Intensive land cultivation – albeit with low use of inputs due to the farmers’ inability to purchase what is necessary has set in. This leads to nutrient “mining of the soils” which is manifested in degraded soils and reduced crop yields."

It also identifies exactly the problems with soil erosion you mention, and that this has led to the banning of land sledges in some African nations. It sounds like this is another example of 'colonial inheritance' - the natives had farming systems that, "successfully conserved the soil but in recent years, conventional flat cultivation, which is associated with modern agriculture has set in."

"I can't spoon feed you any longer. "

Sorry, I know that I am maybe looking for a level of reference that is closer to the essays and dissertations I have written, and maybe that is inappropriate for an essentially informal forum like this. That said, you are making some broad and extreme statements, and not providing an equivalent level of proof. If I get a chance to look at those things, I will, but I am surprised at how unhelpful you have been. With the article I referenced today, I quoted the relevant passage, and provided a direct link, rather than presuming you have the time to read through the entire thing. That is just how I like to communicate, and I don't think it's unfair to expect a similar level from those I am talking with.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:

I agree with your summary of how domestication can work. However, African native animals have not been able to be termed enough to create a breeding stock, and to move on to a domesticated breed or even species. This is including the time that White Africans have been there, bringing over domesticated animals from Europe, who have been very susceptible to disease and parasites which the native species are not.

This can surely not be a case, now, of simply being 'agriculturally unadvanced'. The animals in Africa are not suited to domestication and intensive, European-style agriculture. This leads to them being used, in the way you describe, as currency and symbols of status.

"Today in 2011, many African men are expected to purchase their brides from the father with Lobola, which depending on the bride will be so many head of cattle. No I’m not joking, despite the ANC’s adoption of gender equality, women are still seen as the property of men"

As I said, that's not surprising. Dowries and similar customs are found in many cultures around the world, and are part of our own European culture.

Laager said...

"However, African native animals have not been able to be termed enough to create a breeding stock, and to move on to a domesticated breed or even species."

How sad you are James

The reason for this is that the African owners of African livestock haven't got a clue as to what is going on

Go to Google/Wikipedia and search for Onderstepoort

The white settlers in South Africa created this centre of animal husbandry excellence.
The work done there - particularly under the apartheid regime - was respected around the world in Agricultural circles

Today - 17 years after black majority rule - it is on the brink of collapse

Why?

Because blacks see no value in research and development in these fields of study

"Take the white man out of Africa and Africa will go back to the bush"

How true

The Chinese are now giving it a shot to develop Africa.
Let's see how long they last before they pack up and go home in despair

James Mathurin said...

"How sad you are James"

Feeling pretty OK at the moment, but your concern for my wellbeing is sweet.

"The reason for this is that the African owners of African livestock haven't got a clue as to what is going on"

So why did White owners of African livestock not manage to tame and domesticate them to a degree where they can be used as beasts of burden?

"Because blacks see no value in research and development in these fields of study"

I would find 'corruption' or 'mis-management' plausible explanations for a lack of funding to Onderstepoort, but are there really no Blacks interested in tropical disease research and animal husbandry? I simply find that claim surprising.

I'm not exactly optimistic about the Chinese presence in Africa. I think they're going in with a more productive attitude than the colonialists, but the amorality they have shown, happily supporting non-democratic and brutal dictators where it suits their interests, is not really an aid to stability.

Laager said...

@ James

Enough
You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink

Live your life with with your own perceptions

Take a a trip to Africa to put them to the test

Better still, spend a year or two working out there in any country of your choice, and then complete your visit with a trip to see South Africa - and what has become of it.

Before you go, pop across to -
http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

and read:

The Cruelty of the Noble Savage;
And you STILL ask us why we had Apartheid?

By Mike Smith
7th of June 2011

When you get back return to the blogs and entertain us with your (revised?) views

Have a nice day.

My time is too valuable to waste on this thread any longer

James Mathurin said...

Lager, I do appreciate the irony of your copying and pasting your responses from one thread to another, at the same time as finally referencing a specific article. And they say satire is dead.

The article does catalogue ome horrible instances of child abuse and animal cruelty, but then loses it by apparently suggesting that,
"blacks lack the compassion and benevolence to other human beings and animals that is so self evident in whites."

This is an almost laughable claim, unless he somehow has proof that the horrible crimes he listed are soemhow representative of the majority of Black people, and that no White people ever committed brutal or cruel acts.

And, to be clear, I am not suggesting that White people, or any other group, are somehow worse than anyone else. No amount of melanin changes the general truth that there are some 'angels', some 'demons' and many in between in the human race.

Anyway, I look forward to when you pop back up.

Maryam said...

Don't fall for it Laager, you have produced evidence of black barbarity, if James is claiming white equivalence then it is for him to produce evidence, it is not for you to prove a negative.

If James can find examples of white people hacking bits of meat off live animals, or villages of white people cheering as they place burning tires around the necks of unlucky victims I am sure he will post that evidence.

It is not for you to disprove James's fantasy.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“So why did White owners of African livestock not manage to tame and domesticate them to a degree where they can be used as beasts of burden?”

Oxen were used extensively by whites in South Africa, so much so in fact, that the trek wagon pulled by oxen on the great trek in the 1830s, became a symbol of the old Transvaal. The streets of Salisbury, now Harare, were built wide enough to allow a full span of oxen and their wagon to turn in the street. The only method of transport until the coming of the railway was by ox wagon.

James then went on to say’

“I would find 'corruption' or 'mis-management' plausible explanations for a lack of funding to Onderstepoort, but are there really no Blacks interested in tropical disease research and animal husbandry? I simply find that claim surprising.”

Corruption is endemic in Africa, which together with incompetence, are probably the main reasons for the failure of modern black led societies. Their culture is of such a nature that whilst it was suitable for their late stone-age/early iron-age societies, it regretfully is not suitable for modern industrial societies.

One of South Africa’s great problems is the lack of African students studying engineering and science subjects at tertiary level. Despite the lowering of entrance standards and affirmative action, most of the Africans who are given the opportunity to study engineering and science at tertiary level, fail to capitalize on it.

Prof. Philippe Rushton applied the Raven Progressive IQ test to black South African college students. The Raven test is considered the most culture fair of all IQ tests. The test results showed a mean IQ of 84! If one takes into consideration the fact that these were college students and a small elite, then we must ponder the possibility that the average IQ for the remaining population is much lower. Should the IQ be as low as the foregoing suggests, this would explain the plight of African nations.

I would refer you to the following academic works;

The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, 1994.

Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, Michael Levin, 1997

Laager said...

If james is unwilling to make the effort to refer to all the evidence that I have provided him then there is nothing more that can be done to enlighten his darkness.

His reposts have proved that he is a master of duck, dive, jump, jive, bob, weave and spin.

Sadly he has also proved that he is a product of the left wing liberal media in in the west that blinds and deludes so many people about the reality of Africa.

I recently met a New Zealand lady who specifically went to South Africa "to change the world" After 8 years there living in an idyllic rural environment and acquiring a South African husband, they have re-located to the UK to live a civilised life amongst civilised people. She said "I have seen the light"

The final straw for her was when she was just about to leave home for a midweek tennis date with a girlfriend when the friend's husband phoned to cancel the appointment. He had returned home to find his wife murdered for no reason and only a cell phone stolen.

So unless James makes the effort to live somewhere in Africa for at least 1 year he will always remain the deluded soul that he is and trot out all this LWL indoctrinated nonsense that he fills the blogs with.

================================

Ethnicity, race, nationality. history and environment, culture, multi-culturism, diversity, enrichment - the legacy of slavery, colonialism and apartheid.

Wow!

It is all getting too much for my head, but James has got it all sussed out.

I'm going to bed.

Celtic Warrior said...

Laager said;

“I recently met a New Zealand lady who specifically went to South Africa "to change the world" After 8 years there living in an idyllic rural environment and acquiring a South African husband, they have re-located to the UK to live a civilized life amongst civilized people. She said "I have seen the light".”

When I worked and lived in Central Africa back in the 80s, a humorous question was “what’s the difference between a tourist and a racist?” the answer was “two weeks”. Now I grant that the two weeks was an exaggeration as in reality it was more like 6 months.

I saw, met and became friends with many expatriate aid workers, who were mainly from generation X of the British working classes. Those were the ones to which all was given and expected, including tertiary education, a strong belief in socialism and in the welfare state. They came to Africa on aid programmes with high hopes to bring their expertise and help lift their unfortunate African brothers out of the plight they had descended into after independence in the 60s.

Most of the British aid workers sincerely believed that Africa’s problems were due to the legacy of British colonialism. At first they were unable to see the irony of their situation where the expensive aid programmes which employed them, paid them salaries and perks that were obscene to those working in the private sector. So much for aiding your fellow man, OK provided it was paid for by the British taxpayer.

The lessons in the reality of African life started almost as soon as they landed in Lusaka international airport. They quickly learnt that the flight arrivals and departures board does not work; the lift does not work; the escalator does not work; the toilets do not flush and even the clock has stopped working. When they are stopped at their first road block, and there are many of these, both police and army, they were surprised to learn they were required to part with some of the green stuff. High faluting socialist theory was all very good when presented in a lecture room at a red brick university in the UK but of no use to these people who needed to feed their families. They quickly learned to steer around the huge potholes on the roads and that traffic lights, when they worked that is, were not always a safe place to stop at, especially at night.

They also quickly learned that whilst it was nice to have house servants in the home, anything of value had to be locked up, otherwise it disappeared. They also learned that it was not a clever thing to question those in authority; otherwise one would find ones self in a cell.

When the food riots started in the Copperbelt in 1986, the government’s answer was to send in the army to stop the looting of government stores. Attempts by the army to retrieve these stolen goods ultimately led to troops invading the homes of the expatriates. Whilst at first the demands were for liquor only, it quickly turned to demands for sex from the white women. As most of the expats were British they turned to the British High Commission for assistance, who said were powerless to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. Thank God for the Germans and the Japanese, whose ambassadors got onto the President and informed him that unless the army stopped harassing their female citizens they would immediately cease their aid programmes. Needless to say the army was pulled out immediately. I always thought it a shameful thing for the British to have to depend on the foes they had beaten in war a short 40 years before.

So now you will understand why it is said that the only difference between a tourist and a racist is two weeks. I would imagine many of those expats, now experienced in the reality of life, are now at home in UK and concerned about the failed societies that are now being foisted onto them.

Laager said...

@ CW

Thanks for the insight.

Since moving to the UK I have met a number of idealistic 20 somethings who go to Africa to do their bit. For most a single 6 month tour is all they need to discourage them from ever going again

Compare that to permanently resident white clerics, doctors, teachers, employers etc in Africa who dedicate their entire lives to the cause of upliftment.

A good friend of mine's father retired as a headmaster at a mission school totally frustrated.
He felt that after a lifetime he had achieved absolutely nothing.

Peculiarly you never read about these stories in the liberal media in Europe.

James Mathurin said...

Maryam,

"Don't fall for it Laager, you have produced evidence of black barbarity, if James is claiming white equivalence then it is for him to produce evidence, it is not for you to prove a negative."

Curses! My Master plan foiled! If only there were some evidence of barbaric acts committed by White people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_Massacre

"The Sand Creek Massacre (also known as the Chivington Massacre, the Battle of Sand Creek or the Massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was an incident in the Indian Wars of the United States that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia attacked and destroyed a village of friendly Cheyenne and Arapaho encamped in southeastern Colorado Territory,[2] killing and mutilating an estimated 70–163 Indians, about two-thirds of whom were women and children."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myall_Creek_massacre

"There they slaughtered them all except for one woman who they kept with them for the next couple of days. The approximately 28 people they murdered were largely women, children and old men."

Hell, even here in London, we have Bear Lane, just around the corner from Shakespeare's Globe, so named because it was a site where people would gather to watch bears kill each other or other animals. It also had a neat sideline in exploiting the mentally ill, as people would pay a fee to poke them with a stick.

I feel I should clarify though: I don't think that any of this makes White people any worse than any other group. To pretend any group with nothing more than skin colour in common is inherently better or worse than another is ridiculous. Any such group is just as capable of being horrible or good, and it is truly amazing that you think anyone is somehow 'above all this'.

James Mathurin said...

"Oxen were used extensively by whites in South Africa, so much so in fact, that the trek wagon pulled by oxen on the great trek in the 1830s"

But weren't those imported European oxen? After all, one of the big jobs of animal husbandry for Whites in South Africa was interbreeding their oxen with native oxen to gain some defence against local diseases and parasites. If they were capable of large-scale domestication of African cattle, would that not have been far more efficient than importing European stock?

"Corruption is endemic in Africa, which together with incompetence, are probably the main reasons for the failure of modern black led societies."

Again, all 'modern black led societies' are post-colonial ones, so again, on what evidence do you put those factors down to an inherent difference in Blacks (who after all, over the length and breadth of Africa are far more gentically diverse than I think you realise), as opposed to the common environmental factors caused by colonialism?

"One of South Africa’s great problems is the lack of African students studying engineering and science subjects at tertiary level."

It's also a significant problem here, so I think the far more interesting question is what common factors might be that are causing such similar factors.

Your points about the Raven Progressive Test are worth looking at. The very concept of IQ tests are based upon the work of Alfred Binet, who himself "was forthright about the limitations of his scale. He stressed the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures. Binet also stressed that intellectual development progressed at variable rates and could be influenced by the environment; therefore, intelligence was not based solely on genetics, was malleable rather than fixed, and could only be found in children with comparable backgrounds (Siegler, 1992). Given Binet's stance that intelligence testing was subject to variability and was not generalizable, it is important to look at the metamorphosis that mental testing took on as it made its way to the U.S...

when Binet did become aware of the "foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument" he condemned those who with 'brutal pessimism' and 'deplorable verdicts' were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct (White, 2000).
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

The Bell Curve has had its numerous errors pointed out many times, but one book that was recommended for its demolition of The Bell Curve and the concepts underlying IQ testing was The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (well, the second edition, at least).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

James Mathurin said...

"If james is unwilling to make the effort to refer to all the evidence that I have provided him then there is nothing more that can be done to enlighten his darkness."

Hey, I have done a good job of looking at all the evidence you have suggested to back up your points, and while I have found it to be factually accurate, it consistently draws ridiculous conclusions and makes massive leaps of logic. The only ones I haven't looked at have been the ones where you have basically said 'read several month's worth of blog posts on here, and it will prove what I said.

"His reposts have proved that he is a master of duck, dive, jump, jive, bob, weave and spin."

Hey, don't do yourself down, you duck and jive with the besst of them. Seriously though, this is a forum that allows responses and conversation - if you think I have not addressed one of your points, then please do point it out.

"Sadly he has also proved that he is a product of the left wing liberal media in in the west that blinds and deludes so many people about the reality of Africa."

I've realised from the discussion you and Celtic had that you really did not realise that I knew about the reality of life in Africa. The corruption, lack of value placed on human life, the crime, poor infrastructure and poverty. I am slightly amazed that anyone who planned to live in Africa would not be aware of that.

After all, most of the portrayals of Africa in the media here, factual and fictional, point all of these out. One of you already mentioned Blood Diamond, and there are films like Black Hawk Down, and the Oscar-winning The Last King of Scotlan have pointed out all of those factors. The travel-documentary Long Way Around also does this, and even fictional TV series like ER have had extended storylines set in places like Sudan, featuring horrific scenes of Janjaweed killings, and massive corruption.

I also have to wonder how they have managed to miss coverage of African atrocities on the news. Did they not research where they were going at all? Did they think the ridiculous, racist stereotype of 'The Noble Savage' was all that they needed to keep them safe?

"So unless James makes the effort to live somewhere in Africa for at least 1 year he will always remain the deluded soul that he is"

Is it strictly 1 year? If I move after 6 months, will I only be half-deluded? And does this only apply to Africa, or do I have to live in any place for 1 year before I am capable fo discussing it reasonably?

James Mathurin said...

"They had that opportunity when their countries were under British rule but like everything else they do, they failed to grasp it."

Oh my goodness, are you honestly trying to make me laugh?

Under colonisation, the natives of a country have even less chance of getting education, gainful employment, and generally progressing on their own merits.

This subject recently came up in a conversation with my Dad, who was brought to the UK as a child in the early 60s. He was telling me that in all of the businesses in Saint Lucia (still under UK control until the same year I was born), any management vacancy was filled by bringing someone new over from the UK. No Black could ever be promoted off the shop floor, regardless of experience, competence, loyalty or any other quality.

Exactly which opportunities were they "failing to grasp"?

"Get them out of overcrowed, wet, cold Britain and back to the underdeveloped open spaces of Africa. "

I don't know, I think we could fit a few more crows in here. ;-) Seriously though, if you think you can find a way to get first world standard water, electricity and agriculture in Africa, I am sure you could make a lot of money selling those techniques to interested parties.

James Mathurin said...

"I grew up contributing to the "Black Babies" since I was a 3 year old little boy in poverty stricken Ireland in 1944, when, with my a#se hanging out my trousers and no shoes on my feet, we were made to believe that the black babies were so poor and deserving that we had to contribute scarce pennies out of our own meagre pocket money. I estimate I gave 30% of my pocket money on average."

And yet, the resources, money and power that the UK gained through exploiting their countries still meant that 3-year old shoeless, arse-hanging you was living a higher standard of life than they were.

You were charitable when you didn't have much, that is something to be proud of. Living in Ireland, you would have been suffering from the legacy of British colonialism which started even earlier than that in Africa, Australia and the Americas.

"It was only when I came to Central Africa in the 80s that I discovered where my contributions really went; it was not to the Black Babies but into the pockets of corrupt African leaders who lived the life of O'Reilly."

That must have been hugely disappointing, no doubt.

"It was only then did I realise how desperately poor we were in Ireland in the 40s and 50s. My God what a con."

It was a con. The ex-colonial powers were always very happy to support whichever disgustingly corrupt strongman would best service their interests. They managed to continue to exploit the poor of their own countries, while also continuing to exploit the poor of the countries they used to own.

"And is it any wonder why I, and those like me, detest the Africans and their apologists, who conned us out of the few pennies that we could ill afford. "

Wait, so you are holding the people of Africa accountable for the actions of a few handfuls of largely unelected and corrupt leaders? That is as bad as those Islamic extremists who argue that every Western (and they do not discriminate by colour) man, woman and child is a viable target because of the actions of our leaders.

I have as little love for the corrupt leadres you are talking about, and their supporters as you do. But that is completely separate from my views of the people they ruled over.

"Here’s a suggestion for you James if you are really serious and wish to assist your fellow Africans."

I don't think I am the person to do that, certainly not at this point. I contribute what I can, but right now, like many others, I am just trying to keep my head above water, and trying to get to the point where I can make more meaningful contributions.

"I wonder if putting their money where their mouths are, means anything to the African Diaspora. "

Plenty of them do, but we are not a homogenous block. If you have contact details for the 'African Diaspora', it may help. My list of email contacts is nowhere near extensive enough.

James Mathurin said...

Anonymous,

"White caucasians went to North America and then foolishly imported black slaves."

Well, it seemed to make sense to them at the time. After all, it's not as if they could do all the heavy lifting involved in creating a nation by themselves, is it? They did try enslaving the Native Americans, but that turned out not to be a viable option.

"The inner city of Detroit today and their behaviour in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina is a testament to their contribution to the USA."

Yeah, Detroit has absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the American auto industry, does it? There was a burgeoning, extremely non-violent Black middle class in Detroit until the bottom fell out of the industry that kept that city alive.

As for Katrina, please be specific. There are a lot of grim fairy tales floating about from that particular natural disaster.

"A handful of individuals have "made it" - mainly in the world of sport and entertainment."

I love how I get grief for supposedly only seeing the world through the prism the media show, but you will most probably not get rightly laughed at for persisting in the belief that successful African-Americans are mainly rappers and basketball players.

"However their success is entirely due to utilising the infrastructure created by the white man to bring them to prominence."

...Just as much as the success of American Whites is down to utilising the infrastructure built up by Whites and Blacks.

As for the rest of your points, I think they've all been addressed in the Colonial Inheritance thread.

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/colonial-inheritance.html

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Under colonisation, the natives of a country have even less chance of getting education, gainful employment, and generally progressing on their own merits."

Then I fail to understand why your father would then follow the exploiters back to their homeland in Britain after independence.

Are trying to tell us that the British, when they were in the colonies, acted differently when they returned home to Britain?

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"No Black could ever be promoted off the shop floor, regardless of experience, competence, loyalty or any other quality."

There's a good reason why that was so. If you lived and worked in Africa you would understand why.

I would like to point out that many of the comments made on these threads, also goes a long way to explaining why it is so.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Exactly which opportunities were they "failing to grasp"?"

The same ones they are failing to grasp right now.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Seriously though, if you think you can find a way to get first world standard water, electricity and agriculture in Africa,"

All these things they have had in the past and can have again, if they only ditched their Stone Age culture and eject their incompetent leaders from power. Or in other words adopt first world culture.

There's a joke here in Africa which asks the question "what did Zimbabweans use for lighting before they used candles?" and the answer is "electricity".

Celtic Warrior said...

James said in response to Irish poverty;

“And yet, the resources, money and power that the UK gained through exploiting their countries still meant that 3-year old shoeless, arse-hanging you was living a higher standard of life than they were.”

No matter what end of the stick I hand you James you always grab the wrong end of it.

Firstly, Ireland was not then part of the United Kingdom. And secondly, you know little of Ireland and its poverty.

When Ireland gained independence we did not thereafter complain constantly that our problems were due to the previous colonial power. Neither did we use such terms as “Donor countries” nor “Aid programmes”. I’d like to think that we would have had too much pride to accept such charity. These terms are in everyday common speech in Africa but then maybe that’s because they have no shame.

Celtic Warrior said...

Jame said;

"They managed to continue to exploit the poor of their own countries,"

Why then did your father and others like him, immigrate to the land of the "exploiters"?

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Wait, so you are holding the people of Africa accountable for the actions of a few handfuls of largely unelected and corrupt leaders?”

As I’ve said a many times before, it’s their culture that is responsible for their backwardness and poverty. Even when they take it upon themselves to ditch their corrupt leaders, the new ones they put in their place are equally incompetent and corrupt.

I don’t know why I continue to debate these issues with you. For years I’ve been telling people to forget Africa as it’s beyond redemption and there really is no hope. I think I must take the same attitude towards you.

James Mathurin said...

"Then I fail to understand why your father would then follow the exploiters back to their homeland in Britain after independence.

Are trying to tell us that the British, when they were in the colonies, acted differently when they returned home to Britain?
"

Actually, yes. They basically asked nicely for west indians to come over 'to help the motherland', due to the employment crisis in post-war Britain. West Indians were assured that they would have a chance to earn better work, and better themselves. That is exactly what my Grandad did, and then retired back home, until he died last year.

That said, it did take the Trade Unions to make sure that immigrants were allowed to earn the promotions and better jobs their work deserved. Without them, they would havestill been stuck on the shop floor, just like back in the West Indies.

James Mathurin said...

"There's a good reason why that was so. If you lived and worked in Africa you would understand why. "

So you're back to the myth that Blacks are somehow capable of the, "experience, competence, [and] loyalty" that I mentioned? If you have the proof of that, don't be so coy.

"I would like to point out that many of the comments made on these threads, also goes a long way to explaining why it is so. "

In your humble opinion, of course.

James Mathurin said...

""Exactly which opportunities were they "failing to grasp"?"

The same ones they are failing to grasp right now.
"

This 'separate post for each response' approach is interesting.

No, go on, please be specific. Being banned from advancing from the shop floor, regardless of how deserving they were of doing so, how exactly were they 'failing to grasp opportunities'?

They started to do so once they were in the UK, so what happened? Did they suddenly start absorbing these 'White intelligence genes' that you guys seem to be convinced of the existence of?

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Your points about the Raven Progressive Test are worth looking at. The very concept of IQ tests are based upon the work of Alfred Binet, who himself "was forthright about the limitations of his scale. He stressed the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures.”

I agree that there is a lot of controversy around IQ tests and also regarding Murray and Herrnstein's “The Bell Curve”. These controversies centre mainly around the conclusions drawn by the authors and this is important to note, not about the data itself, which they drew from many sources in addition to their own.

So, accepting for the time being that these tests do not measure intelligence, we can pose the question, do they measure anything else? And the answer is, yes they do. They measure a person’s likely ability to succeed or not succeed in a modern technological society.

When looked at over many decades the following trends are apparent. And note that these comparisons are for those who come from the same socio/economic groups. Note also there will be exception in both groups.

Those who score low in the tests suffer high rates of unemployment, are in low paid menial jobs, have high divorce rates, high single parent families, high rates of violent behaviour, high rates of drunkenness and alcoholism and high rates of criminal activities. They will suffer more ill health due to smoking and bad diet. Their children are less likely to go to college.

Whilst those who score high in these tests, usually end up in better and higher paid jobs, have less unemployment, more stable marriages, less divorce, less single parent families, less family violence, low rates of drunkenness and alcoholism and low rates of criminal behaviour. They will have less ill health due to smoking less and good diet. Their children are more likely to go to college.

So whether one calls it IQ or something less, it can be an indicator of potential social problems, which was what Murray and Herrnstein were getting at in the first place. The figures we have indicate that Europeans and East Asians will tend towards the higher scores whilst African Americans will tend towards lower scores.

Note also that many companies in modern economies utilise these or similar tests to access the suitability of job applicants for specific positions. Note also that these will not be trade or professional qualifications which will have been accessed prior to these tests.

James Mathurin said...

"
"Seriously though, if you think you can find a way to get first world standard water, electricity and agriculture in Africa,"

All these things they have had in the past and can have again
"

That's just a straight-up lie, as I have explained before. None of those African nations were at First-world status under colonialism, especially outside of the cities and neighbourhoods where the White people lived.

"if they only ditched their Stone Age culture and eject their incompetent leaders from power."

Apart from the isolated nomadic tribes, can you really point to any Africans living like the Stone Age? Also, you do know that most of those leaders stayed in power because they were friendly to the West, and protected by them? Again, we are back to 'Colonial Inheritance'.

"There's a joke here in Africa which asks the question "what did Zimbabweans use for lighting before they used candles?" and the answer is "electricity". "

That's a decent joke. Going past Trafalgar Square and the Zimbabwean Embassy, and the large crowd protesting Mugabe's regime, as they often are at weekends, would probably agree with it.

James Mathurin said...

"Firstly, Ireland was not then part of the United Kingdom. And secondly, you know little of Ireland and its poverty. "

Ah, I did not realise you meant the Republic of Ireland.

Looking at the facts, I am even more surprised by your attitudes. The ROI took 70 years from colonialism to move out of severe poverty, and even then, the recent economic state of the country shows that that recovery was pretty unstable to begin with.

The African nations have not had that long, yet you are already eager to jump on their lack of recovery from colonialism as proof of their inferiority as humans.

Perhaps that is the reason that boarding houses here in the 50s and 60s bore the infamous 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish' signs. They used logic like yours to decide that the Irish, like the Blacks, were as inhuman as dogs. What would your argument against them have been?

"When Ireland gained independence we did not thereafter complain constantly that our problems were due to the previous colonial power"

Are you saying that many Irish harbour no resentment over Britain's treatment of them? Last I heard, even mentioning Oliver Cromwell was a sore point. Besides, you are the guy who says he hates Africans because he thinks that 60 years ago they stole his pocket money.

"I’d like to think that we would have had too much pride to accept such charity."

There's a difference between charity, and money owed.

"Why then did your father and others like him, immigrate to the land of the "exploiters"? "

Well, he was a child, and didn't exactly have a say in it. As for the others, we were holding them back from advancing themselves in their own countries, but needed their labour so badly here that we had to offer them a fairer deal. I have no idea whether or not the irony was lost on them.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Actually, yes. They basically asked nicely for west indians to come over 'to help the motherland', due to the employment crisis in post-war Britain.”

Motherland? Where do you get that term from? Surely even you can’t believe that Britain is the motherland (ancestral home) of the Afro Caribbean. Surely that would be sub Saharan Africa.

In response to my statement;
"There's a good reason why that was so. If you lived and worked in Africa you would understand why. "

To which James responded;
“So you're back to the myth that Blacks are somehow capable of the, "experience, competence, [and] loyalty" that I mentioned? If you have the proof of that, don't be so coy.”

I’m unsure of what you’re getting at here, but if its proof you want, then you must come live and work in Africa and see these things for yourself. The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating. You’re obviously unwilling to accept what I have to say, despite my having spent 40 years in Africa. Until you do so, I see no purpose in continuing these discussions.

James Mathurin said...

"Can you explain why Europeans developed the successful societies we see today and why Africans have failed to create nothing more advanced than late Stone Age and early Iron Age societies? "

More experienced minds than mine (I know! Such a thing does exist!) have looked at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#The_theory_outlined

"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In 1998 it won a Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book and produced by the National Geographic Society was broadcast on PBS in July 2005.
...
Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of superior intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

In our earliest societies, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The first step towards civilization is the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, with the domestication and farming of wild crops and animals. Agricultural production leads to food surpluses, which supports sedentary societies, specialization of craft, rapid population growth, and specialization of labor. Large societies tend to develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which may lead in turn to the organization of nation states and empires.[2]

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia had the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication – barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.
...
Sub-Saharan Africans had mostly wild mammals, whereas Eurasians chanced to have the most docile large animals on the planet: horses and camels that are easily tamed for human transport; but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[2][3] goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Africans, developing alongside large mammals, had available lions, leopards etc. Diamond points out that the only animals useful for human survival and purposes in New Guinea came from the East Asian mainland when they were transplanted during the Austronesian settlement some 4,000–5,000 years ago.
"

James Mathurin said...

"You saw fit to mention Neil Degrasse Tyson, how many more like him are there? I would just love to see a list."

So you try to twist your way out of explaining any of your answers, yet want me to come up with such a list? Let's see what I can find, considering, as I said, that my contact list for the African diaspora is missing a few entries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20110211_A_light_on_black_scientists.html

One of my personal heroes, mainly a writer, but also holding a Masters in Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_mcduffie

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/physics-peeps.html

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/physics-timeline.html

http://www.nsbp.org/

http://chemistry.about.com/od/famouschemists/a/blackchemists.htm

OK, that's 5 minutes of googling. How close are you to admitting that you're wrong?

"The real problem with Africa is that there too few exceptional Africans."

Nope, still going.

"I’m told that Africans in the UK have gained much, if only because many of them appreciate the welfare state and the free health care system, which of course are great benefits compared to what they would have in Africa."

Are you completely ignoring the large numbers of middle class Africans who come here for education, like American and European students? Or the Africans that actually come here and, you know, work and pay taxes and stuff?

"Why don’t you start a trend James? "

No thanks. I'm working with children who need my help here, and being British, I like doing something good for my country. Might head to Australia with my fiancée at some point, but other than that, I'm staying right here for the forseeable.

Kilimanjaro said...

For JM

James said:

"It's also a significant problem here, so I think the far more interesting question is what common factors might be that are causing such similar factors."

"I also have to wonder how they have managed to miss coverage of African atrocities on the news."

Kili says:

Hellooooooooooooo ........ wakey, wakey!

----------------------------------------

James said:

" ------ in all of the businesses in Saint Lucia (still under UK control until the same year I was born), any management vacancy was filled by bringing someone new over from the UK. No Black could ever be promoted off the shop floor, regardless of experience, competence, loyalty or any other quality."

Kili says
That was in a liberal British Colony.
The exact opposite was happening in South AFrica.
Blacks were progressing thanks to white benevolence and training. The most visible examples were Mandela and Tambo - Lawyers; and Tutu - school teacher/cleric
Perhaps in St lucia there were genuinely no capable people worthy of promotion

----------------------------------------
James said

"The ROI took 70 years from colonialism to move out of severe poverty ...........
The African nations have not had that long ........ their lack of recovery from colonialism."

Kilimanjaro said...

James said

"The ROI took 70 years from colonialism to move out of severe poverty ...........
The African nations have not had that long ........ their lack of recovery from colonialism."

Kili says:

James, James, James ......... please.

Africa has had since the beginning of time to show us what they are capable of.

The "recovery" from colonialism has absolutely nothing to do with it.

They have all regressed since the white man left.
The best recent example is Zimbabwe.
It has taken Mugabe 20 years to destroy 100 years of white creativity and development

And where have an estimated 3 million Zimbabwean refugees fled to?
Answer - South Africa
Why?
Because South Africa has the most developed economy on the continent
Why?
Because it was created by white people and they have ensured that the management of it stays in their hands to prevent it being destroyed by the millions of stone agers that surround them.

You want proof?
Visit:http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/
and read

The South African Reverse Mandrakes
By Mike Smith
12th of June 2011

for the most recent expose' of black corruption
This time in South Africa

Kilimanjaro said...

James says:

"Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of superior intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

In our earliest societies, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The first step towards civilization is the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, with the domestication and farming of wild crops and animals. Agricultural production leads to food surpluses, which supports sedentary societies, specialization of craft, rapid population growth, and specialization of labor. Large societies tend to develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which may lead in turn to the organization of nation states and empires."

Kili says:

Well, well.

Go and read:
http://greatsalandscandal.blogspot.com/

Here you have a situation where a fully functioning and profitable agricultural infrastructure - created by white people in a foreign land, and using exactly the same resources that have been available to "indigenous" black people for centuries - is being GIVEN to black people, and on average within 2 years these farms are derelict ruins.

How much more evidence do you need?

Your final cop out says it all:

"No thanks. I'm working with children who need my help here, and being British, I like doing something good for my country. Might head to Australia with my fiancée at some point, but other than that, I'm staying right here for the forseeable."

In your heart you know that what is being said to you here is true.
You do not have the courage to go and see for yourself.
Instead you prefer to take the liberal position - sit on the sidelines and chirp away with your left wing liberal cliche's

The classic liberal swerve.

Avoid seeing, touching and smelling reality and continue to brainwash the gullible lemmings that abound in Europe from the multitude of "learned" papers that these denialists and wishful thinkers produce.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“So you try to twist your way out of explaining any of your answers, yet want me to come up with such a list? Let's see what I can find, considering, as I said, that my contact list for the African diaspora is missing a few entries.”

I was not trying to “twist” my way out of explaining. I thought I’d given more than enough explanation but please let me know where I've been remiss and I’ll be glad to provide further explanation. I strongly object to the disparaging connotation you gave to the word “twist”.

When I asked you to provide a list of black achievers, I expected a list of prominent black people with household names who helped change this world. Those you provided hardly rate as world changers and many you listed would only be prominent within the African American community due to them being the first African American to achieve such a status.

Now let me give you a list of some who made major contributions to human society;

Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Newton, Einstein,
Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, Copernicus, Rutherford, Watson, Harvey, Hawking, Watt, Stevenson, Curie, Pascal, Boyle, Hooke, Volta, Jenner, Ampere, Gutenberg, da Vinci, Copernicus, Harvey, Alan Turing, Lord Kelvin and Sir Frank Whittle.

I have many, many more I could list if you wish.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Are you completely ignoring the large numbers of middle class Africans who come here for education, like American and European students? Or the Africans that actually come here and, you know, work and pay taxes and stuff?”

I though we were talking about people who were great achievers. See above.

And in response to my suggestion that he should come to Africa to help his needy brothers, he said;

“No thanks. I'm working with children who need my help here, and being British, I like doing something good for my country. Might head to Australia with my fiancée at some point, but other than that, I'm staying right here for the forseeable.”

Then you’re leaving the upliftment of Africans to those Europeans like me that you label “colonial exploiters”. I would have thought that Africa would have needed you more than Britain or Australia, another one of those colonies taken from the natives by the cruel Europeans. Make sense to me, as like all Africans, they first think of their own comfort. Or as they so quaintly say in the UK, “stuff you Jack I’m all right”.

Whilst I accept that you are a British citizen (a political construct), and that Britain is your country of residence, I submit that you are not British or that Britain is your country. Britain is the country of those we call the “P” Celts, “Q” Celts, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Anglo Normans. Are you one of those? One’s surname is always a good indicator of who one’s ancestors were.

Maryam said...

I see James so you are mainly pointing to events from over 100 years ago, nothing within the last 80 years.

You are aware that over 300,000 people have been murdered in Australia in the last 16 years?

Also, you are comparing people being shot, with people being slowly tortured to death and claiming that demonstrates equal brutality.

How many Australian Aborigines had flaming tires placed around their necks while crowds cheered?

That has happened to at least 20,000 south Africans.

Incidentally, there are claims that the massacres of Native Australians have been highly exaggerated http://www.sydneyline.com/Massacres%20Part%20Two.htm

James Mathurin said...

"Motherland? Where do you get that term from?"

As it was explained to me, that was the term they used, that or 'mother country'. This was while they were still a colony, after all, and their education and social structure was very much set up for them to look to England as this icon to which they owed everything, and should be honoured to toil for.

"Surely even you can’t believe that Britain is the motherland (ancestral home) of the Afro Caribbean. Surely that would be sub Saharan Africa."

That's actually an interesting point. Ancestral home, yes, but considering the slave masters made African languages, religion, names, culture and customs banned and punishable by torture, mutilation and death, and shaped the culture that replaced them for their own interests, there is a question as to which 'created' Carribbean culture, Africa or Europe.

"You’re obviously unwilling to accept what I have to say, despite my having spent 40 years in Africa."

I have accepted all of the factual statements you have made, and the insights you and Laager have offered into current South African politics have been very interesting. However, I see huge gaps in the logic that you've used in understanding those facts, and the conclusions you've drawn from them. It's not as if I'm accusing you of lying, far from it.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"However, I see huge gaps in the logic that you've used in understanding those facts, and the conclusions you've drawn from them."

I would be most appreciative if you would point out specific instances of gaps in the logic, so that I have a chance to correct the situation.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"but considering the slave masters made African languages, religion, names, culture and customs banned and punishable by torture, mutilation and death,"

You're making it sound like these were the official policies of the colonial authorities. Unless you come up with some valid and acceptable references for “banned and punishable by torture, mutilation and death," I have to reject it.


The following is a direct quote from your favourite reference source, Wikipedia;
Quote
“African diasporic religions are a number of related religions that developed in the Americas among African slaves and their descendants in various countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of the United States. They derive from African traditional religions, especially of West and Central Africa, showing similarities to the Yoruba religion in particular.”
Unquote.

I do accept that individuals probably did carry out such uncivilised practises. I also accept that obliging people from diverse language groups to speak a common language also happened, but that would have been common sense. Ever heard of the “Tower of Babel?”

Names and culture of many tribes and peoples have changed as a natural consequence of exposure to more advanced and dominant cultures. This has been happening throughout history. Sure it even happened in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, but I note that there has been a resurgence in Celtic culture and languages in the past few decades. My golly, even the Queen spoke a little Gaelic on her recent historic visit to Ireland, as did President O’Bama.

Laager said...

@ CW & JM

"but considering the slave masters made African languages, religion, names, culture and customs banned and punishable by torture, mutilation and death,"

When the British forcibly took the Cape from the Dutch in 1806. Although the English were a minority they set about Anglicising their new colony

English became the only official language - especially in the schools. The Dutch children had to speak only English. If they were heard speaking Dutch they were humiliated and had to stand in the corner of the classroom wearing the Dunces cap. No torture or death here.

A number of town names were also changed from Dutch to English - hence Malmesbury, Worcester, Wellington, Montagu, Ashton, Robertson.

These grievances, plus taxes and interference by the authorities in labour practices on the farms lead to the Dutch leaving the Cape and trekking into the interior to find land to establish republics and rule themselves as far away from the British as possible.

James Mathurin said...

Kilimanjaro:

""I also have to wonder how they have managed to miss coverage of African atrocities on the news."

Kili says:

Hellooooooooooooo ........ wakey, wakey!
"

A very good point, and made in a devastating fashion.

"Blacks were progressing thanks to white benevolence and training. The most visible examples were Mandela and Tambo - Lawyers; and Tutu - school teacher/cleric "

Please, they progressed in spite of the education and healthcare in South Africa, which, as I already demonstrated in response to Laager http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/colonial-inheritance.html?showComment=1305313591982#c3487483759619490568, was many times inferior to the funding for White education and helathcare, per capita. It's impressive that anyone managed to reach such professions in such a biased system. Still, as you point out, it was fairer than colonialism.

As for the rest of your points, they have all been covered earlier in this thread. If you want, I can find the links to the specific posts.

"In your heart you know that what is being said to you here is true.
You do not have the courage to go and see for yourself.
"

Mate, I work with disabled children in school, which is far from the best-paid job I've ever had. If that's your definition of a 'cop-out', I'm not sure what to say. Do you really think you can guilt me into pretending that your points are right?

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“As it was explained to me, that was the term they used, that or 'mother country'. This was while they were still a colony, after all, and their education and social structure was very much set up for them to look to England as this icon to which they owed everything, and should be honoured to toil for.”

The people of Ireland which had been a colony of England’s since 1169 never saw England as the mother country or as an “icon to which they owed everything and should be honoured to toil for”. Neither did the Scots nor Welsh.

I believe this is a very good example which explains the major differences between Europeans and Africans. The Irish, Scots and Welsh, never lost their basic cultural values or totally lost their languages, as these were a treasured part of their culture, unlike Africans whose cultural values were obviously thought to be of less value and therefore more easily exchanged for the richer more dominant culture. If their cultures had been strong and resilient, then they would have withstood the onslaught of European culture.

I do however believe that the Irish, Scots and Welsh, whilst treasuring their own unique Celtic languages, also value the advantages which the English language has given us. I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard the Celts moan about our adoption of the English language, except in jest, unlike our friend James.

You probably are unaware of the extreme lengths that the African people are going to, in order to get their children into English schools here in the new black ruled South Africa. The coloured people, who are mainly Afrikaans speakers and from whose patois the Afrikaans language sprung, are also going to great lengths to change their home language to English. And all of this without any coercion by the Europeans.

James Mathurin said...

Hey Celtic, it looks like I got you mixed up with some of the other people in this thread, as far as twisting my words, so I apologise for that.

That said, I do find it a bit rich that you are so hurt by the 'disparaging connotations' I made, considering the disparaging comments I've had since I got here. You've been happy to call me 'beyond redemption', but it is mostly Laager and the others who have had the ridiculously condescending attitude.

"When I asked you to provide a list of black achievers, I expected a list of prominent black people with household names who helped change this world."

Well, then that is what you should have asked for. You asked for 'achievers', and I gave you achievers, particularly those who have achieved something more substantial than the afore-mentioned sports and entertainment.

"many you listed would only be prominent within the African American community due to them being the first African American to achieve such a status. "

There were no mentions of, or reason to think that they were the first African Americans to do those things.

"Now let me give you a list of some who made major contributions to human society;
...
I have many, many more I could list if you wish.
"

This list hardly disproves any of my points. I have not argued against those men or their achievements, only against your explanation of inherent, biological, physical differences as the reason why the differences between the European and African cultures exist.

James Mathurin said...

"
“Are you completely ignoring the large numbers of middle class Africans who come here for education, like American and European students? Or the Africans that actually come here and, you know, work and pay taxes and stuff?”

I though we were talking about people who were great achievers. See above.
"

No, you made a specific point about Africans only coming over here to live on benefits.

"Then you’re leaving the upliftment of Africans to those Europeans like me that you label “colonial exploiters”."

I never labelled you as a 'colonial exploiter'. If anything, you went over with good intentions, and I don't think I've suggested anything else.

"Make sense to me, as like all Africans, they first think of their own comfort. Or as they so quaintly say in the UK, “stuff you Jack I’m all right”."

Like I said to the other guy, I work with disabled children for half the salary I earned a few years ago. If you are going to have to resort to childish attempts to guilt me into dropping this, you might want to reconsider.

"Whilst I accept that you are a British citizen (a political construct), and that Britain is your country of residence, I submit that you are not British or that Britain is your country."

So if I am not British, what am I? St Lucian? I have spent 2 weeks of my life there in my teens. I was born and raised here, my culture is British culture.

"Britain is the country of those we call the “P” Celts, “Q” Celts, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Anglo Normans."

So, Northern Europeans, Scandinavians and French? Don't forget the Romans, and the multicultural occupation force they brought over with them.

"Are you one of those? One’s surname is always a good indicator of who one’s ancestors were. "

Actually, my surname is French, so by your definition, I fit right in here.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:

"I would be most appreciative if you would point out specific instances of gaps in the logic, so that I have a chance to correct the situation. "

Well, you admit that you know nothing about the science of genetics, yet you remain convinced that there is a genetic explanation for the historical differences we are discussing. That seems to be the main gap in the logic underlying almost every point you're making in this discussion.

You seem especially quick to point out historical and cultural factors in European history, yet insist that every similar point relating to non-White cultures is genetic and inherent. It just seems blatantly hypocritical to me.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Hey Celtic, it looks like I got you mixed up with some of the other people in this thread, as far as twisting my words, so I apologise for that.”

Me thinks you’re getting mixed up about a lot of things.
I was not hurt about the term “twisted”, I strongly objected to it.
I cannot recall ever having said that you are 'beyond redemption', if I did then I apologise and if not I expect you to apologise.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“Well, then that is what you should have asked for. You asked for 'achievers', and I gave you achievers, particularly those who have achieved something more substantial than the afore-mentioned sports and entertainment.”

You knew exactly knew what was meant or should have but you purposefully chose to ignore it as you are doing right now. GIVE ME A LIST OF AFRICANS WHO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOME WORLD CHANGING EVENT SIMILAR TO THE LIST I PRESENTED.

James then went on to say;

“There were no mentions of, or reason to think that they were the first African Americans to do those things.”

I don’t understand this statement.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

“This list hardly disproves any of my points. I have not argued against those men or their achievements, only against your explanation of inherent, biological, physical differences as the reason why the differences between the European and African cultures exist.”

I simply asked you to provide a list of prominent Africans who have achieved anything similar to the Europeans on my list. See above.

However to put the record straight there are inherent biological and physical differences between Africans and Europeans and some are;

• Skin colour; Nose shape; Lips shape; Hair texture and colour; Eye colour. All due to evolutionary pressure.
• One is the high incidence of sickle cell anemia in the African population, and it is genetically transmitted.
• Europeans were unable to penetrate into the African continent until a propalactic was found to counter malaria. Evolution has provided Africans with a greater resistance to malaria.
• African increased athletic ability compared to Europeans.
• Culture is a product of particular societies and is an obvious difference between African and European societies.

James Mathurin said...

""but considering the slave masters made African languages, religion, names, culture and customs banned and punishable by torture, mutilation and death,"

You're making it sound like these were the official policies of the colonial authorities.
"

No I'm not, I am stating that it was the common practice of the slave masters - those who brought and owned Africans as cattle.

West Indian slavery was on the same model as American, and there a many referenced mentions to this kind of treatment in the wiki article on US slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_culture#History

"From the earliest days of American slavery in the 17th century, slave owners sought to exercise control over their slaves by attempting to strip them of their African culture.
...
Slave owners deliberately tried to repress independent political or cultural organization in order to deal with the many slave rebellions or acts of resistance that took place in the southern United States, Brazil, Haiti, and the Dutch Guyanas.[6]
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Treatment
"Historian Kenneth M. Stampp describes the role of coercion in slavery,

Without the power to punish, which the state conferred upon the master, bondage could not have existed. By comparison, all other techniques of control were of secondary importance.[43]
...
According to both the historians David Brion Davis and Eugene Genovese, who won major awards for their work on slavery, treatment of slaves was both harsh and inhumane. Whether laboring or walking about in public, people living as slaves were regulated by legally authorized violence.
...
Those who punished slaves also used weapons such as knives, guns, field tools, and objects found nearby. The whip was the most common instrument used against a slave. One slave said that, “The only punishment that I ever heard or knew of being administered slaves was whipping,” although he knew several that had been beaten to death for offenses such as sassing a white person, hitting another negro, fussing, or fighting in quarters.[45] Slave overseers were authorized to whip and punish slaves. One overseer told a visitor, "Some Negroes are determined never to let a white man whip them and will resist you, when you attempt it; of course you must kill them in that case."[46]
...
Slaves were punished for a variety of reasons, most of the time it was for working too slow, breaking a law such as running away, leaving the plantation without permission, or not following orders given to them. Myers and Massy describe the practices: “The punishment of deviant slaves was decentralized, based on plantations, and crafted so as not to impede their value as laborers.”[48] Laws made to punish the whites for punishing their slaves were often weakly enforced or could be easily avoided.
...
Whites often punished slaves in front of others to make an example. A man named Harding describes an incident where a woman assisted several men in a small rebellion, “The women he hoisted up by the thumbs, whipp’d and slashed her with knives before the other slaves till she died.”[50]
...
Slave codes authorized, indemnified or even required the use of violence, and were denounced by abolitionists for their brutality. Both slaves and free blacks were regulated by the Black Codes and had their movements monitored by slave patrols conscripted from the white population. The patrols were authorized to use summary punishment against escapees; in the process, they sometimes maimed or killed the escapees.
"

James Mathurin said...

"Names and culture of many tribes and peoples have changed as a natural consequence of exposure to more advanced and dominant cultures."

Are you honestly saying that this is the reson that all slaves had European surnames, spoke the language of their masters, and almost all converted to Christianity? You honestly think this was voluntary?

James Mathurin said...

Laager,

"English became the only official language - especially in the schools. The Dutch children had to speak only English. If they were heard speaking Dutch they were humiliated and had to stand in the corner of the classroom wearing the Dunces cap. No torture or death here."

Yes, none of the whippings, beatings and murder I referenced before. This is because the British recognised the Dutch as humans, whereas Africans were viewed as animals. You guys went through some horrible stuff, but compared to African slaves, you really got off easy.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic, this is getting silly:

"The Irish, Scots and Welsh, never lost their basic cultural values or totally lost their languages, as these were a treasured part of their culture, unlike Africans whose cultural values were obviously thought to be of less value and therefore more easily exchanged for the richer more dominant culture."

No, as I have demonstrated, their cultural values were whipped, beaten, and in the case of the women, often raped out of them.

"If their cultures had been strong and resilient, then they would have withstood the onslaught of European culture. "

It is harder to resist the onslaught of European whips and knives though, I think you'll agree.

"I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard the Celts moan about our adoption of the English language, except in jest, unlike our friend James."

Please show where I have 'moaned'. I have simply pointed out that it was a brutal process. That is a historical fact, not a 'moan'.

"You probably are unaware of the extreme lengths that the African people are going to, in order to get their children into English schools here in the new black ruled South Africa."

I do not know about it within South Africa, but I am very aware of them sending or bringing their children to the UK for a better education, so it is not a aurprise.

"And all of this without any coercion by the Europeans."

So what do you believe was the reason for their brutal coercion of their slaves? Surely they could have done it much more gently, unless their intention was not coexistence, but rather brutal subjugation?

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:
"I cannot recall ever having said that you are 'beyond redemption', if I did then I apologise and if not I expect you to apologise. "

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/colonial-inheritance.html?showComment=1307918402450#c6030624129024483688

"For years I’ve been telling people to forget Africa as it’s beyond redemption and there really is no hope. I think I must take the same attitude towards you. "

James Mathurin said...

"You knew exactly knew what was meant or should have but you purposefully chose to ignore it as you are doing right now. "

No, really. Don't let my dashing good looks confuse you, I'm a total science and history geek. These people, who have achieved within the sphere of physics, creative arts, etc, are achievers to me. I did not realise you had such a hyperbolic definition of 'achievement'.

"GIVE ME A LIST OF AFRICANS WHO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOME WORLD CHANGING EVENT SIMILAR TO THE LIST I PRESENTED."

Well, the list is only really going to be from the Post-colonial period, so off the top of my head, hmm:

Martin Luthor King Jr
Malcolm X/El Hajj Malik El Shabazz
Barack Obama
Colin Powell
Condoleeza Rice
Mandela
Tutu

I'd just add those names to the other, also incomplete one, but I'm sure you would not. Still, I'm sure you'll have plenty to say about the anmes I have given.

"“There were no mentions of, or reason to think that they were the first African Americans to do those things.”

I don’t understand this statement.
"

You said that some of those African American scientists, academics, etc that I listed would only be known because they were the first African Americans to have done so. I was just pointing out that there was no mention of them being the first, and I think it says more about your prejudices that this idea would even occur to you.

James Mathurin said...

"However to put the record straight there are inherent biological and physical differences between Africans and Europeans and some are;

• Skin colour; Nose shape; Lips shape; Hair texture and colour; Eye colour. All due to evolutionary pressure.
• One is the high incidence of sickle cell anemia in the African population, and it is genetically transmitted.
• Europeans were unable to penetrate into the African continent until a propalactic was found to counter malaria. Evolution has provided Africans with a greater resistance to malaria.
• African increased athletic ability compared to Europeans.
"

So disease immunity, lung / muscle capacity, melanin and sickle cell? i wouldn't argue with any of those, but these are all very minor differences, and certainly have no imapct on culture, intelligence, or anything substantial. i am certainly happy to qualify my statement thus:

"There are no significant or meaningful genetic, biological or physical differences between Africans and Europeans."

Does this meet with your approval?

"• Culture is a product of particular societies and is an obvious difference between African and European societies. "

You just said you were listing "inherent biological and physical differences between Africans and Europeans," yet this is an utterly non-biological and non-physical difference. Why is it in your list?

Kilimanjaro said...

For JM

"Please, they progressed in spite of the education and healthcare in South Africa, which, as I already demonstrated in response to Laager was many times inferior to the funding for White education and helathcare, per capita.

It's impressive that anyone managed to reach such professions in such a biased system. Still, as you point out, it was fairer than colonialism."

================================

You totally miss the point.

White missionaries introduced reading and writing to black Africans.
The first Xhosa newspaper appeared in 1837 -
a mere 17 years after the whites arrived.

In the preceding 1837 AD years blacks had achieved ZERO reading and writing skills

As for unequal per capita expenditure.
Blacks continued with their tribal subsistence farming lifestyle utilising barter as a means of currency amongst themselves.
THEY PAID NO TAXES into the white man's world.

So besides the missionaries who were funded by well wishers in the UK/Europe once the local cash economy evolved amongst the white settlers, blacks were being educated as an extreme act of benevolence by local whites.

Fast forward that to today and 56% of the tax revenue generated by the white economy was being spent on black infrastructural development/upliftment.

The per capita argument is a loser from the start as the black population was exploding at a rate far greater than the available resources could cope with.

The real test is what has happened since black majority rule in 1994.
The entire infrastructure has gone backwards and results are now worse with blacks now managing the the tax revenue generated by whites.

What is left after most of the budgets have been stolen comes nowhere near what the whites were achieving.

The results of successive white Govts in SA have far outstripped the successes trumpeted by the myriad of white charities based in the UK and the west.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;
“That's just a straight-up lie, as I have explained before.”

You are also becoming personally abusive and I will terminate this discussion should you continue in this manner.

James went on to say;
None of those African nations were at First-world status under colonialism, especially outside of the cities and neighbourhoods where the White people lived.”

Neither were they at “First-world status” before colonialism, so what is your point?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 239   Newer› Newest»